“In March, the Commercial Court ruled that a bank's proceedings against a carrier for misdelivery of cargo activated LOIs granted by voyage charterers, Glencore, to disponent owners, Navig8. Glencore's time bar defence, based on Clause 38 of the voyage charter (providing that "the period of validity of any letter of indemnity will be 3 months from date of issue... the indemnity will expire at the end of.. three-month period"), had been dismissed on the basis that the Clause was not a time bar but simply defined the deliveries to be covered by LOIs. Despite the Court of Appeal holding that Clause 38 did constitute a time bar, it nevertheless dismissed Glencore's appeal on the grounds that the LOI terms were 'stand-alone' and included no equivalent expiry provision to that in the charter. “

“By a COA involving several voyages on amended Asbatankvoy terms, Owners' demurrage claims were subject to a 30-day documentary time-bar, running from the day after discharge completed, requiring supporting material to be sent "to Charterers". Owners sent documentation to brokers whose name appeared in a commission clause of the charters. The Tribunal found that those brokers were intermediated brokers whose principals were neither Owners nor Charterers and whose only duty was to pass on messages up and down the chartering chain. Owners could not therefore establish receipt of the documentation by Charterers in time and their claims were time barred.”

“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.”