“Insured shipowners' claim under a marine policy of kidnap and ransom was paid by insurers pursuant to a settlement agreement. Insurers then sought damages against their insured's director, domiciled in Greece, for procuring a breach of the settlement agreement (by depriving them of a subrogated claim for cargo's GA contribution and failing to account for such GA contributions as were received). The director was held to have submitted to the English Court's jurisdiction by failing to raise a challenge in time. The Court found that it would have had jurisdiction in any event (under Art. 7(2) of the Recast Brussels Regulation) in relation to the accounting under the settlement agreement, as this was to occur in England; however, (but for the submission) it would not have had jurisdiction over the unrecoverable GA, as that loss was sustained in Oman, where the voyage was abandoned after the release of the vessel by pirates.”

“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.”