Under an amended NYPE 1981, Owners claimed damages for a shortfall in redelivery bunkers, based on the redelivery place price and making just a 2% allowance for ‘about’ (as Charterers had ample warning and opportunity to replenish). Charterers contended that the Vessel had insufficient tank capacity for stemming at their chosen place, and that Owners had not in fact replenished at the redelivery place. The Tribunal found the usual 5% allowance appropriate but otherwise dismissed Charterers’ arguments: there was no warranty of tank capacity and the redelivery port price – not the C/P one – applied to damages, irrespective of where replenishment happened.

The Defendant Charterers consistently failed to pay or pay on time. The Claimant Owners, relying on the amended Shelltime 4 c/p, suspended performance, whilst claiming hire. When the 6th hire went unpaid, leaving some USD3.7m outstanding, Owners accepted Charterers’ conduct as a repudiation or renunciation, and elected to terminate the c/p and claim damages. The Court dismissed Charterers’ claim for wrongful termination, and held Owners were within their rights to suspend performance having regard purely to their own interests. Charterers’ consistent failure to pay on time had deprived Owners of “substantially the whole benefit” of the c/p and provided Owners with reasonable grounds for believing they would not receive them in the future. Charterers were held to be in both repudiatory and renunciatory breach, and summary judgment was granted.

The Claimants (disponent owners) let the Vessel on 8 months t/c to the Defendants, who ordered her to Venezuela to load a cargo not authorised for export. Following a resulting detention of almost 3 years, the Vessel was redelivered by the Claimants to head owners, who having declared a CTL, sold her for scrap. Some USD24m. for loss of earnings and other items (based on the t/c express indemnity and/or breach of the non-exposure to seizure clause) was awarded to the Claimants in a series of arbitration awards, the last of which deducted USD1.4m. for their saved dry-docking costs. The Court dismissed the Claimants’ challenge to this ‘saving’, confirming (i) no co-extensive dry-docking liability to head owners (ii) sufficient connection between t/c breach and saving and (iii) no reason why set-off could not be made against an express indemnity claim.

London jurisdiction having been agreed by the two owners following a collision in India, liability was admitted and quantum settled by an accepted pre-action ‘Part 36’ offer, appending a more detailed Settlement Agreement. In addition to its London lawyers’ and Club costs (comprised in the ‘Part 36’), the Claimant (in costs proceedings) sought additional fees of Indian agents, lawyers and P&I Correspondents and those of its H&M insurers’ Italian lawyers. The Court found that whilst these items might have been open for recovery under the ‘Part 36’ terms, they were in fact covered by the more detailed Settlement Agreement, which superseded the ‘Part 36’ terms.

A Shipbuilding contract guarantee in respect of the (USD170m) final instalment for a USD200m drillship, given “absolutely and unconditionally” and “not merely as…surety” provided for payment “upon receipt…of…first written demand….” by the Builder. But in the event of a dispute over Buyer’s liability to pay, submitted to arbitration, the Guarantor was entitled to withhold payment pending the award. The CA, overturning the High Court judgment, ruled that this was a ‘demand’ guarantee (without reference to Buyer’s underlying liability) not merely a ‘see to it’ one and that the proviso operated only where the underlying liability arbitration had been commenced prior to the guarantee demand.

Two Monegasque villas and a private jet were sold in breach of a worldwide Freezing Order against Mr Su’s assets. The Claimant thus brought claims for unlawful means conspiracy and violation of rights in the judgment debt (‘Marex tort’) against the Defendant recipients of the sales proceeds, including Mr. Su’s mother and entities in her control. The Court found her to be untruthful, “up to her neck” in conspiracy, and that the Defendants had combined to evade the Order, rendering enforcement more difficult, thus constituting an unlawful means conspiracy. The ‘Marex tort’ was also satisfied as, knowing of the judgment against Mr Su and the Claimant’s rights, the Defendants had procured, induced and/or facilitated transfer of the sales proceeds.