“A P&I insurer who had paid out under the policy following the sinking in 2010 of the insured vessel, later sought to avoid the policy and reclaim the payment. After the payment the insurer had changed name and identity by restructuring but the proceedings were issued (just before the 6 year limit) in the old name. The Court dismissed the defendants' argument that the mistake was legal (and inexcusable) rather than factual and despite the time bar passing and criticism of the solicitor for not investigating the name change, the Court allowed the substitution of the correct party.”

“Following a fire on board a laden tanker (possibly started deliberately by the Chief Engineer), cargo owners Glencore sought recovery from shipowners for their proportion of salvage (and costs) and challenged shipowners' entitlement to GA contribution. The Court ruled on preliminary issues as to barratry and Article IV r2(b) (fire) and (q) (other cause) of the Hague Visby Rules. Barratry required a deliberate and wrongful act prejudicing owners or cargo; the wrongful element must involve something generally recognised as a crime or a deliberate or reckless breach of duty to shipowners; if therefore the C/E was suffering from a clinical mental disorder, the act would not be barratrous. However, Art IV r2(b) can still apply to a deliberately started or barratrous fire, although not r2(q).”

“In interpreting the meaning of the word "act" in clause 8(d) of the ICA (apportionment of liability on a 50-50% basis unless the claim arose out of the act or neglect of one of the parties), the Court of Appeal held that clause 8 is concerned with causation rather than culpability. The critical question is: does the claim "in fact" arise out of the act, operation or state of affairs described? It does not depend upon legal or moral culpability. In the present case, prolonged stay at anchor damaged the cargo and Charterers had to share liability irrespective of whether ordering the vessel to wait at anchor was culpable or not.”

“The owners of a tanker were refused contribution to general average of some USD 2.1 million as the engine breakdown suffered was considered to be the result of an actionable fault in failing to make the vessel seaworthy. The failure of a crankshaft main bearing was caused by a damaged filter failing to remove harmful particles from the lub oil. Deflection readings had earlier indicated that something was wrong, but they were ignored.”

“More than 7 years after delivery, the buyer of a consignment of gasoil filed a complaint in Nigeria, alleging that it was "off-spec". The sale contract was subject to English law and jurisdiction and the seller sought a declaration of non-liability from the English Commercial Court, on a summary basis. The Court rejected the buyer's argument that the claim for a declaration was time-barred, ruling that there is no accrual date for a claim that a person has not broken a contract. The Court also noted that to hold otherwise would strip the seller of protection against an otherwise time-barred claim being pursued in a non-contractual jurisdiction.”

“The repayment of a loan is often accompanied by an increase in the amount repaid, "called interest by those who think it lawful and usury by those who do not". The English Court found that an agreement governed by English Law remained valid even though it would offend against the principles of Shari'a law in the country where it was to be performed.”