“Bumi Armada granted Tozzi a right of first refusal for certain works in a floating gas production and storage facility construction project; having awarded those works elsewhere, Bumi Armada said that the right was not binding as the minutes of meeting recording it (drawn up by Bumi Armada but signed by both parties) were expressed to be "subject to ...contract". The Court of Appeal found that the first refusal agreement had been concluded orally at the meeting and that on the facts, the minutes had no contractual effect and their "subject to contract" proviso was ineffective.”

“The claimant bank had provided a loan for the purchase of a vessel; alleging default, it called in the loan and arrested the vessel as security for its claim. Owners sought release of the vessel unless the bank provided a cross-undertaking in damages. In an urgent but landmark ruling the Admiralty Court held that it had no jurisdiction to require such an undertaking.“

“In a London arbitration involving a bank to whose order the bills of lading had been consigned, shipowners sought demurrage. The Court allowed shipowners' challenge to the Tribunal's ruling that the bank received rights but not liabilities under the bills so that claims against it were not arbitrable. The Court did not rule on the demurrage or the extent of liabilities, referring these issues back to the Tribunal.”

“H, the guarantor of a long-term time charter, faced a USD68.Sm claim from S after charterers failed to perform. H argued that both charter and guarantee were unenforceable, being procured by bribery, evidenced by individuals' confessions. S said the confessions resulted from torture. All relevant parties and events were in the PRC. The 1st instance Judge found no bribery and that neither the confession nor torture evidence was reliable. The CA ruled that the Judge should first have decided upon the torture, so his finding on bribery was unsound. In the unusual circumstances, the matter was remitted to another 1st instance judge to consider the evidence afresh.”

“After the intervention of US sanctions, a USD35.5m shipbuilding loan concluded with IRISL subsidiaries was terminated and called in by the lenders. The sums due — including a 'termination amount' demanded on 9 June 2010 — were repaid by the subsidiaries on 14 December 2010 and irretrievably distributed between lenders by 5 January 2011. On 10 January 2017 the claimant subsidiary started proceedings alleging that the 'termination amount' was never due, having been paid under economic duress, and sought damages for breach of contract or in restitution. The Court held that any breach occurred on 9 June 2010 and any unjust enrichment between 14 December 2010 and 5 January 2011, so that on any view the 6-year Limitation Act period had expired. Nor could it be extended under s.32, economic duress not constituting 'fraud' and there being no deliberate concealment of the distribution.”

“By a 5-year 2013 contract, Seadrill agreed to provide drilling services to Tullow by a semi-submersible tug, in specified sea areas off Ghana. In2014, an UNCLOS tribunal ordered Ghana to stop drilling with the effect that from late 2016 Tullow would not be able to exploit the relevant areas. Tullow ceased to pay hire and terminated the contract relying on a term excusing performance if fulfilment of the contract was delayed or prevented by defined 'force majeure' events. The Court found that although there was a force majeure event as defined (drilling moratorium) it had to be the sole cause of the party's failure to perform. Here however there were two concurrent causes preventing performance and the other (government failure to approve a wider plan), was held to be the effective one.”