“Under an MOA on the 2012 saleform with addenda, following NOR, Sellers were to provide (i) their own confirmation of non-encumbrance and (ii) a confirmation from the Vessel's registry. In the absence of (ii), Buyers failed to pay the purchase price and Sellers cancelled the MOA. The Tribunal dismissed Buyers' claim for return of the deposit and damages, finding that on a true construction of the addenda, (ii) need not be provided before the payment obligation was triggered. Sellers' cancellation was valid, entitling them to retain the deposit.”

“Seemingly contradictory jurisdiction clauses were reconciled by the Commercial Court which, in a final order, restrained the defendant from pursuing proceedings under an insurance policy before the courts of the State of Washington. The Commercial Court found that the parties had agreed London arbitration and that the U.S. jurisdiction clauses should be read so as to apply only in the context of enforcing an arbitration award (or obtaining jurisdiction in the event that the parties dispensed with arbitration).”

“Trinity agreed with its agents that shipments for UK importers, Fielding, would be released against documents proving payment for goods. Nevertheless Mr Wolff, Fielding's director, agreed with the agents that shipments would be released just on payment of the agents' fees, the agents then falsifying the documents sent to Trinity. Fielding, in administration, failed to pay for the goods and Trinity (having paid the suppliers) sought damages from Mr Wolff based on various torts including procurement of breach, conversion, deceit and conspiracy. On the evidence, the High Court upheld only the first, the CA agreeing (although granting permission to appeal on conspiracy).”

“The CA has confirmed Teare J's decision to refuse to order a cross-undertaking in damages in relation to a ship-arrest. The CA found that there was no case to intervene on this discretionary decision when the Judge had followed the usual practice; further, departing from the established practice would undermine confidence in the maritime jurisdiction. However, whereas Teare J took the view that only Parliament could bring about the change sought by the defendants, the CA considered that theoretically it fell within the Court's discretion — although in the absence of international consensus and overwhelming support from the maritime industry, there was no reason to alter the status quo.”

“The Supreme Court has overruled the Court of Appeal and held that defending a cargo claim under the Hague Rules, a carrier must prove (i) that the loss was not caused by a breach of the Article III cargo care duties and (ii) not just that the matter falls within one of the Article IV r2 exceptions but that there was no causative negligence on his part.”

“A time charter performance warranty was based on "good weather condition" (Beaufort 4 etc.) but without specifying the period it must subsist in order to qualify. The Tribunal rejected an argument that at least 12 hours of good or bad weather in any noon to noon period should characterise weather. Although performance was ultimately decided on other grounds, the Tribunal suggested that a better method was to look at weather conditions at the beginning and end each 6-hour period within any noon to noon 24 hours in order to characterise a weather day.”