Under a T/C on an amended Asbatime 1981 form, Charterers warranted that their orders would respect the C/P maximum duration, failing which Owners (Clause 119) had the option to refuse an offending order, or to perform it “without prejudice to their right to claim damages, including consequential damages….in case of late redelivery”. Following an admitted late delivery, Charterers argued that damages should be limited to the difference between market and C/P rate for the extended period. However, the Tribunal also awarded Owners the losses they claimed thereafter, arising out of cancellation of the follow-on fixture repositioning the Vessel for a planned dry-docking. The Tribunal found that Clause 119 was an exception to the ordinary measure of damages and that here Charterers were aware at the time of fixing of the importance of timely redelivery due to dry-dock commitments and the commercial likelihood of a repositioning fixture.

An amended NYPE 93 placed the Vessel off-hire in case of hold inspection failure “until the vessel … passes”. The Tribunal implied Charterers’ obligation to carry out any reinspection with reasonable diligence and without undue delay, and found that a delay of some 12 days since Owners’ notification that holds were cleaned was excessive and did not qualify as off-hire. On appeal, the Court agreed that the Tribunal had applied the correct legal test for the implied term (objectively necessary or obvious) but ruled that off-hire did not cease on Owners’ notification but when the reinspection ought to have taken place.

“Sydney” collided with “Apollo” in the approaches to Tianjin, causing collective damage of some USD13.5m. The Court found that despite adequate manning and look-out, the “Apollo” Master had failed to appreciate how the Vessels were approaching each-other (which was in fact port to port) and attempted to cross ahead of “Sydney” “in flagrant breach of the crossing rule”. Despite some criticisms of “Sydney” none was found to be causative, and “Apollo” was held 100% responsible.

Further to the implementation of sanctions against Russian entities after the invasion of Ukraine, the Defendants in a fraud litigation applied for a stay of the proceedings and release from existing freezing orders against them. The Court dismissed the application by holding that (i) sanctioned claimants can sue for and pay damages; (ii) judgment can lawfully be entered in their favour; (ii) payment of costs to and by them and security for costs to be provided by them are licensable activities.

Further to the buyers’ default payments under 2 sale contracts on c&f “free out” terms, the sellers managed to resell the peas and lentils cargoes to another company and were awarded damages by an arbitration award. The buyers appealed on the measure of damages under clause 25.c of GAFTA24. The first instance judge found no error of law in the tribunal’s decision based on the market price in Vancouver and the market rate of freight for carriage to the discharge port of Mundra. The CA held that the value of the goods fell to be measured by reference to a notional sale of the goods in bulk ex warehouse Mundra on the relevant date of default, but with risk passing to the buyer at the date of contract. The awards were thus remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration.

Under hire purchase agreements relating to high-end cars, the Defendants defaulted on their scheduled payments to the Claimants. The Claimants issued warnings as to reliance on the contractual termination clause, then entered negotiations but ultimately terminated - without intimating that negotiations had ended. Dismissing the Defendants’ case based on waiver or estoppel (specifically forbearance) the Court held that there was neither agreement nor unequivocal representation by the Claimants not to enforce their termination rights (nor any reliance by the Defendants).