The Respondent Charterers, a trading arm of the Government of Mauritius, repudiated a 15-year COA. The arbitrator dismissed Charterer’s argument that the COA was unlawful, due to lack of required approval by the Central Procurement Board, and awarded some USD115m. to the Appellant owner. The Supreme Court of Mauritius (SCM) held that the COA, being unapproved, was in contravention of public procurement legislation, and set the award aside as it conflicted with public policy. The Privy Council, on appeal, held that, whilst the SCM was empowered to determine whether an award conflicted with public policy, this power did not permit it to review the legality of the COA, which turned on statutory interpretation, and gave rise to no issues of public policy. The appeal was allowed, and the award final and enforceable.

The Claimant Owners brought High Court proceedings against the Defendant Charterers, pursuant to the C/P exclusive jurisdiction clause, for unpaid hire. The Claimants had earlier arrested the POLA DEVORA, at Gibraltar, as security for their claim, in the mistaken belief that she was owned, rather than chartered by, the Defendants, who now sought to counterclaim tortious damages for wrongful arrest. The Court held that as the arrest was in reliance on the Claimants’ C/P rights, it fell within “any dispute arising out of or in connection with” the C/P conferring jurisdiction on the High Court, and allowing it to dismiss the Claimants’ challenge.

After being condemned to pay some USD130m. for wrongful repudiation of a contract under an arbitral award, the Claimant government, STA, obtained from the Court an extension of the 28-day period for challenge. STA issued another challenge under s.68 after the expiry of the extension and on the same day applied for a retrospective extension of time, relying, inter alia, on the replacement of their Attorney General and their legal representatives. The Court dismissed the application on the bases that i) the delay was significant/substantial (27 days from first extension) with no explanation for it, nor evidence the Defendant/Tribunal contributed to it, ii) lack of prejudice to OFY was not a necessity for refusal, iii) the merits were intrinsically weak, and finally iv) refusal was not unfair, a first extension having already been granted.

Following an in rem default judgment against “POSEIDON”, the Defendant insurers rejected the Claimant’s demand under the LOU arguing that judgment was only effective against the res and not binding on owners (now in liquidation). The Claimant then obtained an in personam default judgement and the insurers’ application to set it aside (on the basis that no collision statement of claim had been filed) was dismissed by the Court (which found no such requirement in the absence of acknowledgment of service). Further, the argument that the in rem judgment was not binding was irrelevant, the new proceedings being in personam, in which the Registrar’s in rem decision was conclusive evidence. The insurers should have contested the in rem proceedings but any re-litigation of issues was unlikely to reduce the claim below the LOU amount and would put disproportionate costs on the Claimant.

The CA ruled that a fuel oil sale Recap term making the quality inspection certificate binding on both parties, could not “fairly and sensibly be read together” with an incorporated BP term making the certificate binding “for invoicing purposes”. Buyers were therefore precluded from pursuing their quality claim on the following grounds: i) the BP term effectively deprived the Recap term of all effect, ii) a regime in which a quality certificate is binding is significantly different from one in which it is not, iii) it was unlikely the parties would wish to detract from this central feature of quality determination, and iv) while possible to agree a non-binding analysis, on a commercially reasonable interpretation this was not what the parties had agreed.

Owners’ demurrage claim was based on time running from the first NOR, which was tendered at Southwest Pass when congestion prevented berthing at UBT Davant. The C/P Recap provided that a valid NOR could be given “at or off the port…WWWW” (whether or not at berth, in port, customs cleared or free pratique). However, the Recap also incorporated the UBT (United Bulk Terminal) rules. Charterers relied on the latter, which set out preconditions for a valid NOR including that vessel was at “berth or closest available anchorage”. The Tribunal held that the conflicting terms in the incorporated document (UBT rules) gave way to those in the primary agreement (Recap) and that the Southwest Pass was the nearest anchorage for waiting and vessel was “off the port”. Consequently, the first NOR was valid and Owners’ demurrage claim successful.