“The Court allowed an appeal from an arbitration award which had held that shipowners were unable to recover from charterers in respect of liability to those interested in a cargo of direct reduced iron. Clause 49 of the c/p on the NYPE 46 form stated "the Stevedores... to remain under the direction of the Master who will be responsible for proper stowage and seaworthiness and safety of the vessel". The Court held that such a partial transfer of responsibility to the shipowners for some aspects of cargo handling is not sufficient for there to be considered a "similar amendment" for the purposes of Clause 8(b) of the ICA.”

“The 28 day period for challenging an Arbitration Award was held to run from the date of the Award and not from the date of a Memorandum (requested 12 days, and issued 27 days after the Award) under s57(3)(a) of the Arbitration Act, correcting what the Court termed "classic clerical and typographical errors". The corrections were unconnected with and not material to the grounds of appeal and the Court held that the appeal was out of time and declined to exercise its discretion to grant a retrospective extension.”

“The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that "unit" in Article IV rule 5 of the Hague Visby Rules means a physical item and that "enumeration... as packed" means no more than specification in words or figures of the number of packages. Therefore, the first instance judge correctly concluded that the specification on the bills (in this case, waybills) was such that identified individual frozen tuna loins as the relevant units.”

“The sellers of a road salt cargo claimed that the buyers were in repudiatory breach of the sale contract for not providing the letter of credit on time. The Tribunal found that the provision of a letter of credit was to be read as an innominate term and not a condition as the failure to provide it would have not deprived the sellers of the whole benefit of the contract, i.e. the sale of salt and the expected profit.”

“The Court found that an exclusive jurisdiction clause creates "continuing obligations" meaning that claimants were obliged to neither start nor continue proceedings anywhere other than England. Following commencement (in 2008) and continuation of negligence proceedings against them in Germany by their former clients, AMTF brought proceedings in England (in 2007) for damages for breach of the jurisdiction clause. The High Court held that allegations relating to events within 6 years of commencement of the English suit were not bound to fail and dismissed AMTF application for Summary Judgment.”

“A defendant sentenced to imprisonment for contempt of Court for flouting a world-wide freezing order, fled the jurisdiction and remains unfound. The claimant bank then pursued the defendant's son-in-law, domiciled in Switzerland, for damages flowing from a conspiratorial agreement to assist in defeating the freezing order. The Supreme Court confirmed that the necessary 'harmful event', namely the making of the conspiratorial agreement, occurred in England (even if its implementation took place elsewhere), thus giving the English Courts jurisdiction, in this case under the Lugano convention.”