“Subcharterers Gujarat India failed to pay US$ 3.2M freight to Disponent Owners PCL, time charterers of the Vessel Illawarra Fortune. After taking assignment of Owners' rights under the b/Is, PCL tried to recover those sums from Shippers WCL. The bills provided for "freight payable as per Charter Party", i.e. the voyage charter. However, following Wa's failure to pay part of freight costs, the b/Is were marked "Null and Void" and substituted by switch bills identifying New Alloys as shippers. The Court held that because of the novation WCL's liability under the b/Is was extinguished therefore neither Owners nor PCL as their assignee could recover the freight and costs related to the voyage.”

“The Claimant German banks applied for summary judgment to enforce a US$97 M ship finance loan agreement, as amended by later agreements, against the Borrowers, two Liberian companies, and the Guarantor, their Greek beneficial owner. After verifying that the claim was validly served and the Defendants were aware of the proceedings and the application, a hearing took place remotely on 3'6 April but none of the Defendants appeared or was represented. The Claimants' application succeeded against both Borrowers and Guarantor as the Court found that (i) the Defendants had no real prospect of success in defending claims for unchallenged debts "undoubtedly due" and (ii) there was no compelling reason for the claims to be determined at trial. The Court was convinced that a summary judgment might be more readily enforced than a default judgment in other jurisdictions. The Court took the opportunity to end the uncertainty as to enforceability of English judgments in other EU Member states post-Brexit, by ruling that such judgments may be enforced in Greece pursuant to Article 67(2) of the 30.01.20 EU Council Withdrawal Agreement "so long as the proceedings were issued before the end of the transition period".”

“The Claimant Bank (claiming to be the holder of the B/L) had obtained an ex parte freezing order over the proceeds of sale of the Defendant Carrier's Vessel, as security for its claim for misdelivery (the cargo was delivered without production of the B/L as directed by Time Charterers, in return for an L01). The Court discharged the freezing order, finding that the Bank had failed to provide full and frank disclosure (in particular of financing arrangements with its customer, Time Charterers), disabling the Court from giving proper scrutiny at the ex parte stage to the Bank's assertion of 'good arguable case' on the merits.”

“Further to €55 M damage caused to RTE's underwater electricity cable by the anchor of the barge STEMA BARGE II, three related companies, respectively her Owners, Charterers and Operators, claimed to limit their liabilities to £5.5 M based on tonnage. Disputes arose as to Stema UK's qualification as "operator of the ship" and its entitlement to limitation pursuant to the Limitation Convention 1976. in the absence of authority on the meaning of operator or manager and taking into account the difference between conventional merchant ships and dumb barges, the Court was satisfied with the evidence that the limited services (typical of managers) offered by Stema UK were sufficient to make it appropriate to describe it as the "operator" of the barge. The company was therefore entitled to limit its liability.”

“The Commercial Court granted an anti-suit injunction against cargo insurers who - in breach of London arbitration - pursued contractual claims for cargo damage and salvage expenses in Brazil against the Vessels managers and her time charterers. The Court rejected the argument that Charterers' application for an injunction was delayed. Equally unsuccessful was the argument that the anti-suit injunction would breach the principle of comity, even though the Brazilian courts were already dealing with Charterers' jurisdictional challenge.”

“The Tribunal held that, notwithstanding expiry of 24 months from delivery of the cargo, Time charterer's iCA claim against Owners was not time barred by paragraph 6 of the iCA. Charterers had informed Owners by various emails of the merchant's intended cargo claim — water damage due to the vessel's crew negligence -despite not being able to substantiate the details required by the paragraph, such as "the contract of carriage, the nature of the claim and the amount claimed". However, the Tribunal found that paragraph 6 simply required a "written notification of the cargo claim" for the validity of the recovery and the obligation of providing details — characterised by the words If possible — did not give rise to the barring sanction. Therefore, while the absence of any written notification would bar the recovery claim, the absence of details in relation to it would be of no effect.”