Time Charterers under an amended NYPE deducted for underperformance, relying on their weather routing company’s (WRC) report. One C/P clause contained performance criteria and good weather benchmarks, another the sources of weather data, namely Vessel log and WRC. The Tribunal found the WRC had not adhered to the benchmarks when assessing a period of some 48 hours as good weather because (i) the WRC’s ‘current factor’ netted adverse and favourable currents – and the latter should not be taken into account; and (ii) the WRC’s combined significant wave height data made it impossible to assess swell direction. Even though the Tribunal found that the log exaggerated sea and swell, and the WRC report was reliably sourced, the latter was not in compliance with the C/P and was therefore not valid as a resolution of the underperformance claim, causing Charterers’ claim to fail.

A, owner of a transatlantic yacht contracted with H, a yacht transportation company, for her delivery to Delaware, USA. The yacht set sail in mid-November, her route being via Spain, Azores, Bermuda (the “northern route”). Severe weather and an accumulation of boat defects convinced the crew to put back to the Azores for repairs. Ultimately another contractor completed the transit the following year. A relied on a repudiatory breach by H and claimed its extra delivery charges, repair costs and marina fees citing A’s choice of the wrong route, failure to assess weather conditions, and damaging the yacht. The Court found that H’s planning and execution of the voyage was carried out with the necessary skill and care; the damage was attributable to multiple manufacturing defects. There was no breach and H was awarded its counterclaim for unpaid sums under the contract.

Panamax Alexander (“PA”) was moored in a narrow part of the Suez Canal awaiting repairs/towage following a collision the previous day. NYK Falcon (“F”) and NYK Orpheus (“O”) passed by PA as part of a convoy. After F cleared PA the latter’s stern ropes parted and she swung into the channel. O collided with her. In consolidated proceedings the Court found F “clumsy” in the passing manoeuvre but greater blame lay with PA’s poor mooring and reaction and O’s excessive speed. PA and O were more than doubly to blame. Pa and O were ordered to pay 5/12 of the other damages and F 1/6 of PA’s.

The MSC Flaminia suffered a cargo fire and explosion (originating in laden containers) causing, sadly, loss of life and personal injury and giving rise to numerous claims including for cargo damage. Time Charterers (MSC) sought to limit their liability viz a viz Owners for damage to the Vessel, pursuant to Art.2.1 of the Amended 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability: “Claims in respect of … loss or damage to property…occurring on board….and consequential loss”. MSC argued that Vessel damage was “consequential loss” flowing from cargo damage thus entitling them to limit under Art. 2.1. The Court disagreed: Owners’ claim was for Vessel damage, not cargo damage. MSC were solely time charterers, not cargo owners. Owners’ claim was not, therefore, limitable.

The Tribunal held the claims against the carrier for misdelivery after cargo discharge were time-barred by Art. III r.6 of the Hague Visby Rules. The Claimant (financiers and B/L holders) argued the Rules only applied to the sea voyage, not misdelivery from storage, and that the time-bar immunity ended when the cargo was discharged. The High court dismissed the appeal (s.69) and upheld the Tribunal’s award. Most deliveries take place after discharge, and outside of carrier’s control, and it would be odd if the critical distinction for time bar purposes depended on the timing of delivery. Such an interpretation was consistent with the objective of finality and to allow a carrier to “close his books”.

The demise charter contained a purchase obligation by Charterers at expiry. Title would pass automatically provided “Charterers have paid all hire… and… all management fees... due”. Charterers subsequently faced claims for management fees and crew wages, and a Singapore Court ordered the Vessel’s sale. Charterers, who disputed these claims, argued that disputed debts were not “due” and that Vessel title had passed to them. The Court disagreed; reasonable business persons would consider an amount due despite being disputed. There was nothing unfair to Charterers about a bona fide dispute depriving Charterers of the passing of title when they had failed to satisfy the conditions set out in the c/p.