Charterers instructed Owners to not “allow sampling and discharge” as receivers had not paid. Owners claimed damages for the detention and relied on a provision in the Recap allowing time lost to be reimbursed as damages. Charterers disagreed and argued demurrage was only remedy for failing to complete discharge within time. The Tribunal agreed; the Recap also contained an express term stating “CARGO ANALYSES…IMPORT AND/OR EXPORT FORMALITIES” to count as laytime. This included “cargo sampling” and Charterers’ delayed authorisation. Owners claim for damages failed, but they were entitled to demurrage with laytime running as stipulated in the Recap.

Vitol sold 30,000 mt fuel oil to JE, FOB Tema with laycan 23-24 December; further terms were envisaged, for example as to the L/C. JE failed to nominate a vessel to arrive Tema within laycan but Vitol continued to demand performance (rather than cancel) until on 1 February, JE declared the contract ‘null and void’ at which point Vitol treated JE as in repudiatory breach. JE argued that in context ‘laycan’ here simply indicated a loading period, which in the event was subsequently extended by agreement to 31 January. The Court found that ‘laycan’ had its traditional meaning and any agreed extension related solely to L/C arrangements. Vitol’s claim for market value (based on its own sales and statistics) of approximately USD3.3m was accepted.

Pola bareboat chartered 7 vessels (with purchase options) for 10 years from D2 (Malta) to fulfil its long-term, continuing, contracts. D2 is wholly owned by D1 (Irish), in turn beneficially owned by Russian interests subject to EU and US sanctions (the latter with a 1.9.22 deadline for transactions, and both impacting on Pola). Although the C/Ps were subject to English law/ Arbitration, Pola commenced substantive proceedings in Ireland seeking (inter alia) on a summary basis, urgent specific performance of its purchase options and orders abridging the option notice periods. As Ds 1 and 2 indicated they would comply with the Irish Court’s orders, the Court granted these 3 reliefs, in particular as damages would not have been an adequate alternative to specific performance.

Owners claimed demurrage under an amended Asbatankvoy. Charterers challenged the validity of an NOR as tendered via email, a means not listed by Clause 6 “letter, telegraph, wireless or telephone”. “Wireless”, Charterers argued, referred solely to VHF/radio transmission and the Asbatankvoy form pre-dated email. Owners proved that the NOR email had been transmitted via vessel’s wireless communication system (and email existed before the Asbatankvoy). Owners’ claim, thus, succeeded.

The Claimant claimed fees under an introductory agency agreement. The Defendant alleged that the Claimant had breached financial services legislation - sec. 26(3) of the FSMA - rendering the agency unenforceable. The Claimant applied to strike out the defence and/or for summary judgment. The Court declined as (i) the subject is an area of developing jurisprudence and decisions on novel points of law should be based on actual findings of fact; (ii) given the uncertainty, it was not possible to conclude that the Defendant had no real prospect of success and (iii) a trial would still be needed to investigate the other defences related to the construction of the agency.

When the vessel, chartered on a NYPE form cp, arrived at loadport, her whole crew were tested because the third engineer had presented covid symptoms. In the end only the bosun tested positive so the port authorities ordered a 14-day quarantine. Owners claimed some US$ 275k balance of hire but charterers held the vessel off-hire from arrival at loadport to the end of quarantine. Owners relied on Clause 114 pursuant to which in the specific case of loss of time due to quarantine procedures to combat avian influenza, the vessel would not be off-hire. Charterers relied on the exclusion in the same clause, for which Owners would bear the loss of time and related costs if arising “as a direct consequence of the vessel’s or officers/crew’s history prior to delivery”. The Tribunal found that quarantine would have not been ordered had the bosun not tested positive, so it did not arise as a consequence of events prior to delivery. Owners’ claim thus succeeded.