The Claimant cocoa traders sought to set aside an Award of the Board of Appeal of the Federation of Cocoa Commerce (FCC), on the basis of 'serious irregularity' (s.68) alleging bias of the Tribunal's chairman due to reasons including his participation in and querying of the Claimants' earlier application for FCC membership, his socialising with and previous trading with Defendants. The Court found no breach of any disclosure duty by the chairman and that a fair minded and informed observer would not consider that his limited involvement with the Defendants gave rise to a risk of bias. The Award (ruling that the Claimants' claim was time-barred) was confirmed.

Under an amended NYPE 93 C/P, Charterers ceased paying hire alleging that whilst crew members were testing Covid-positive, the Vessel was off-hire. The C/P provided that no hire deductions were permissible without Owners' written agreement. The Court, on appeal, upheld the Tribunal's ruling that Owners reasonably withheld permission and that the deduction was wrongful. Hire remained payable even if it might later be determined or agreed that the Vessel was indeed off-hire.

Further to the vessel’s grounding, Cargo Interests claimed damages in respect of their payments to salvors, on-shipment costs and the physical damage to the cargo incurred during re-floating operations. The Carrier relied on Article IV(5)(a) of the Hague Visby Rules to argue that its liability was limited by reference to the weight of the limited quantity of cargo which had suffered physical damage. The Court found that the phrase “goods lost or damaged” in the article includes both physical and economic damage. The limit was thus to be calculated on the basis of the full cargo as the damages and costs incurred had diminished the value of or affected economically the cargo as a whole.

Following a dispute, the Seller of a premium car collection reached agreement with the selling auction house in respect of "all and any claims". The Seller later sued its financing company and the auction house for conspiracy to injure its interests by unlawful means (selling the cars at an undervalue). The CA confirmed the ruling of the Court below that the settlement agreement released the parties and compromised even claims for fraud and dishonesty, despite these neither featuring in the original dispute nor being expressly mentioned in the settlement agreement.

Owners succeeded in avoiding an agreement settling a repair Yard’s invoice (albeit in ‘full and final’ terms, acknowledging satisfaction with work and that no claims could ensue) on the grounds of economic duress. The Tribunal found both the Yard’s insistence on a non-contractual waiver and the threat of exercising a non-contractual lien (thereby preventing the ship’s sailing), to be unlawful and amounting to illegitimate pressure. It was open to Owners to pursue their claims for delayed completion and disputed amounts (which largely succeeded) and loss of profit (which failed, the daily delay penalty sufficing).

Norwegian Havila group commissioned the building of 4 vessels financed by sale and lease-back arrangements with the Defendants, who were Irish-registered, indirect subsidiaries of a Russian state-owned entity. The Defendants relied on consequences flowing from the imposition of EU Sanctions as constituting contractual Termination Events, requiring “immediate” payment by Havila of Termination Sums; in the absence of such payment, the Defendants invoked contractual Enforcement Events, allowing foreclosure. The Court ruled that there were Termination (not Enforcement) Events and that payment of Termination Sums to the Defendants’ nominated, but frozen, account would constitute good discharge of Havila’s obligations.