“Following arrest of their Vessel at Singapore on 12 March, in relation to a cargo mis-delivery claim, head owners demanded that time charterers place the security; the Claimant time charterers (alleging that in the interim they had 'lost out on a fixture) now sought an urgent injunction compelling the Defendant voyage charterers to provide the security to obtain the release of the Vessel. The Commercial Court on 26 March granted the injunction, dismissing the Defendants' argument that the loss of the fixture opportunity nullified the urgency, acknowledging instead the volatility of the market for large crude carriers and recognising the pressing need for the provision of security to obtain release of the Vessel.”

“An amended Asbatankvoy covered one of two parcels carried for different charterers. Laytime / demurrage was to be pro-rated according to B/L quantities. The CP specified that a demurrage claim required "claim/invoice in writing and all supporting documents... within [90] days after completion of discharge". The SOF incorrectly recorded B/L quantities. The Court allowed an appeal from an arbitration, finding that the B/Ls themselves should have been provided. Owners' claim for US$56,049.36 demurrage was time-barred.”

“Responding to claims totalling some GBP16.Sm under personal guarantees, the Defendants had counterclaimed for conspiracy to raid and seize their assets, contrary to Russian law. Some 22 months after the trial which spanned 6 months, the High Court allowed the claim and dismissed the counterclaim for lack of proof. The CA held that the Judge's requirement that the Defendants establish "the facts to be incapable of innocent explanation" set the bar too high, rendering the judgment unsafe and that a retrial should take place. The delayed judgment, although inexcusably in excess of the unwritten 3 month rule, did not alone render it unsafe.”

“In upholding the decision of the Admiralty Court, the Court of Appeal found that the passage plan is an "attribute" of a vessel which, if defective, can render it unseaworthy. It did so in the present case, defeating the owners' general average contribution claim. The judgment suggests that navigational oversights prior to or at the commencement of a voyage can lead to owners incurring liabilities if such errors eventually cause loss.”

“Having paid a 2006 cargo claim as ordered by appellate Brazilian Courts in 2017, Owners claimed indemnity from Charterers under Clause 10 of an amended GENCON Form. Charterers argued that by then the claim had become time-barred. The tribunal held by majority that the obligation of Charterers to indemnify Owners against "all consequences or liabilities" meant that time started running from payment of the cargo claim which was the consequence of signing bills more onerous than the terms of the Charterparty.”

“Following the sinking of the Al Salam Boccacio '98, victims claimed damages in Italy against the classification/ certifying bodies, RINA, who pleaded state immunity on the basis that they were operating on behalf of the Republic of Panama (the vessel's flag state). The Italian Courts sought guidance from the Court of Justice of the EU. In rejecting Rina's argument, the CJEU found that neither the fact that the acts were performed on behalf of/in the interests of a state, nor the possibility of the state's incurring liability, in themselves, bring such acts outside the scope of the ordinary legal rules applicable to relationships between private individuals. Civil actions such as this fall within the meaning of "civil and commercial matters" of Brussels I Regulation, and the Italian Courts could, therefore, hear the case.”