“Shortly before the expiry of the time bar, the Claimants issued but did not serve their Claim Form (which had a validity of 4 months); the Defendants tried to shorten that period by a notice under CPR7.7 calling for service within 14 days. Despite the Claimants narrowly missing the deadline, the Court declined to dismiss the claim as the Claimants had made proper efforts to serve, and the Defendants had suffered no prejudice by the short delay.”

“It was held that pleadings containing negotiations between Charterers and Owners could not be protected by privilege since these negotiations were aimed at finding a commercial solution to a commercial problem (the inability of Charterers to make hire payments following a significant plunge in the freight market). Factors such as the presence of lawyers in negotiations, the presence of a third party acting as a mediator, or discussion of a novation did not create a "legal dispute". “

“A London Tribunal has ruled that a claim for legal costs by itself is capable of succeeding under the Inter-Club Agreement (as it held that Clause 4 of the ICA included legal costs in the defence of the original claim), in contrast to an earlier decision on a similar point by another London tribunal.”

“Where the same agents acted for the shipowners, receivers and other parties in the contractual chain, the Court rejected an argument that the cargo was delivered to the agents on behalf of the shipowners, thus coming outside the terms of the Charterers' LOI; finding instead that the agents must have acted for the party to whom delivery had been requested under the LOI. “

“In a claim for an indemnity under the Inter-Club Agreement, it was held that the true construction of clause 8(d) and, in particular, the term "act" in the phrase "act or neglect", did not require fault. Therefore, Charterers' order not to discharge soya bean meal for over 4 months due to non-payment by receivers was considered an "act" within the ambit of clause 8(d), and Charterers were required to bear 100% of the claim.”

“Borrowers under a Facility Agreement financing the purchase of a vessel challenged the Lender's right to pursue its debt in the English Court— pursuant to a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause — on the basis that the Lender had already made an election in favour of a foreign court. The English Court upheld its jurisdiction finding that there was no clear election. Furthermore, the foreign proceedings — an attempt to enforce security after arrest of the vessel in India — were different in nature from the English ones. In any event, in common with many international financing transactions, the Agreement did not bar parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions.”