Owners claimed that Charterers’ failure to discharge within laytime, gave rise not only to demurrage but also a cargo deterioration claim against Owners by Receivers. The CA, reversing Baker J’s decision, held that demurrage was Owners’ sole remedy – it “liquidates the whole of the damages arising from… failing to complete cargo operations within the laytime”. Breach of a separate obligation was required to claim additional damages for delay and as Owners failed to plead it, recovery of such damages was precluded.

When their cargo of copper was replaced by cobblestones, Mercuria commenced proceedings in Turkey against carrier Maersk, who, 5 weeks later, sought an anti-suit injunction (‘ASI’) to enforce the B/Ls’ exclusive English jurisdiction clause. Mercuria argued that Maersk had deliberately delayed until the expiry of the B/Ls’ time bar - so an ASI would cause prejudice as English proceedings would be fatally flawed. The Court nevertheless granted the ASI: the time bar was usual, nothing had prevented Mercuria commencing English protective proceedings or required Maersk to seek the ASI any earlier.

Owners of CMA CGM Libra, grounded after straying from a buoyed fairway, appealed a ruling that their (causative) failure to update charts to show “numerous depths less than charted” rendered the vessel unseaworthy (Art. III r.1 Hague Rules). Dismissing the appeal, the SC held that seaworthiness was not confined to physical defects, nor were seaworthiness and navigational matters distinct categories. Negligent navigation, here by not updating charts, caused the unseaworthiness, to which Art IV r.2 was no defence, and Owners were under a non-delegable duty to make the vessel seaworthy.

In a dispute over rent escalation provisions, Aircraft Lessors sought an order for disclosure of data held on mobile phones of the Saudi Arabian Lessee’s employees. The employer’s right to possession/ access to the phones, pursuant to Saudi law, could not be made out, nor (c.f. English law) could such right be presumed. Therefore, the necessary “control” element for an order under the Disclosure Pilot Scheme (PD51U) was absent, and the Court had no authority under CPR to order exercise of “best endeavours” to obtain documents not within a respondent’s control.

The Panamax Alexander (“PA”), bound for Iran, struck the Osios David (“OD”) and a Collision Jurisdiction Agreement on the ASG2 form (the ‘CJA’) was agreed, requiring security “reasonably satisfactory to the other”. OD refused PA’s Club LOU tendered, on the grounds that risk of non-payment under its sanction clause would “effectively render the LOU useless”. Alleging that the refusal was a breach of the CJA, PA sought as damages the cost of the alternative security provided. Although finding that, given the Iranian nexus, inclusion of the tendered clause was reasonable, the Court held that on a true construction, the CJA did not oblige OD to accept that security (it remaining the recipient’s choice to accept an LOU or arrest) and PA’s claim failed.

After MSC Opera ran into River Countess in Venice, Demise Charterers (MSC) accepted responsibility, conceding that Italian law governed recoverability. However, they challenged both title to sue of River Countess’ Charterers and recoverability of their pure economic losses. Relying on Italian law experts, the Court held that Charterers had (in contrast to English law) title to sue in tort and that their net loss of revenue together with ex gratia refunds and payments to passengers were recoverable (subject to proof of causation, unavailability of a substitute vessel and reasonable mitigation of damage to brand/goodwill).