“Gunvor sold 60,000mt gasoil to ARC, for delivery July 2014, with payment (due before delivery) calculated by reference to a contemporaneous Platts index. The parties agreed to delay delivery to September, but without adjusting the pricing clause. Gunvor invoiced at the July price but ARC paid at the lower September rate. Gunvor delivered a quantity less than 60,000 mt, commensurate with the July price, selling the balance to a third party. Gunvor sought damages arising out of ARC's failure to pay the full price. The Court rejected ARC's arguments that the price index automatically moved with delivery date, or that the contract was so varied, and held that the contract was for "pre-payment" at the July rates in the absence of any clear link to delivery date.”

“An amended Asbatankvoy C/P Clause specified that any claim for demurrage would be waived unless received by Charterers in writing with all supporting documents within 90 days of completion of discharge. The Clause identified supporting documents as: (a) Time logs, (b) NORs, (c) Pumping Logs and (d) Letters of Protests. Whilst (a) and (b) accompanied the (timely) claim, (c) and (d) did not, as already provided (as required by another clause) at an earlier stage. The Court held that the Clause did not contain any express requirement that supporting documents all had to be provided at the same time — or together with the claim. Furthermore, as (c) and (d) were identified by the Clause as supporting documents, Charterers should have been alerted to their status upon first receipt, such that Owners were not obliged to re-submit them. Charterers' application for summary judgment based on a time-bar defence was therefore dismissed.”

“Under an amended NYPE c/p providing for Charterers' claims to be extinguished unless notified to Owners and accompanied by "all available supporting documents (whether relating to liability or quantum or both)", Charterers' claim was time-barred as a report, issued at Charterers' request but not supplied to Owners until claim submissions were served, fell within the category of "supporting documents" and therefore was required to be presented with the notification as it supported the liability and quantum of the claim. The clause was wide enough to cover documents which were arguably privileged.”

“The Court dismissed an application by KKK to set aside JKL's permission to serve out of the jurisdiction proceedings for damages caused by KKK (a worldwide container shipping company) in procuring or inducing a breach by K-Euro (KKK's agent) of its service agreement with JKL. Although KKK's application did not succeed, the Court held that JKL failed to provide full and frank disclosure as to the grounds on which its claim in tort would be presented. In order to mark the gravity of such failure, the Court exercised its discretion by ordering JKL to pay KKK's costs of the application on an indemnity basis.”

“Charterers under an amended Synacomex CP, disputed demurrage, alleging that Owners' delay on the voyage/failure to ventilate the grain cargo/disinfect topsides caused cargo damage and infestation, prolonging discharge. The Court found that Owners were free to and did select a usual and reasonable route but although in breach of warranted speed, there was no specific resulting damage. Conversely the failures to ventilate and disinfect both constituted breaches of Owners' Hague Visby Rules Article Ill r2 duties and caused increased 'crust' and infestation respectively, giving rise to identifiable delays, to the extent of which Charterers were relieved from demurrage liability.”

“The Court refused Owners' application to admit the MAIB (UK investigatory body) report into arbitration proceedings with Charterers, further to the UK-flag vessel grounding in the UAE. Pursuant to the Merchant Shipping Regulations 2012, the only purpose of MAIB investigations is to improve maritime safety (and not to attribute or apportion blame). MAIB reports are therefore inadmissible in any judicial proceedings, unless a court determines that the interest of justice outweigh any prejudice to future accident safety investigation and relations between the UK and foreign states or international organisations. The Court found that in this case there was no reason to depart from the general rule, as maritime safety and international relations are of a greater importance than Owners' commercial interests in recovering their loss.”