Those interested in a cargo of cocoa beans claimed against the carrier in respect of damage. The Court found that the condensation damage was caused by post-discharge lack of container ventilation pending de-vanning. The contractual claim (by the B/L holder/ endorsee) failed as the B/L provided that carrier’s liability ended upon tendering the goods for delivery (here discharge) and incorporated the Hague Rules to the same effect.  The negligence claim by the alleged goods owner failed as there was neither evidence as to cargo ownership at the material time, nor basis for carrier liability outside the terms of the B/L.

The Court granted Esso an extended interim injunction against the Defendant and persons unknown (environmental protesters) restraining them from disrupting construction on its Southampton to London Oil Pipeline Project, on the basis of the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. It was immaterial that not all protest was aimed directly at Esso.

In relation to the time-charterers’ liabilities arising out of the explosion on MSC Flaminia in July 2012, the CA held that a charterer who falls within the extended definition of "shipowner" in Article 1.2 of the Amended 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability cannot limit its liability to the actual owner in respect of losses suffered by the owner itself.

The English Court had upheld Rolls Royce (“RUK”) termination of a Service Agreement with Topalsson (containing an English exclusive jurisdiction clause ‘EJC’). RUK now sought an anti-suit injunction restraining Topalsson’s subsequently commenced US proceedings against it and others. The Court found that the subject matter (essentially copyright) of the (recently amended) US Complaint did not arise under the Service Agreement and the EJC provided no basis for an anti-suit injunction either contractually or otherwise. The unamended Complaint had, however, constituted a breach of the EJC, potentially entitling RUK to damages.

Under a T/C with maximum duration to mid-December 2019, Charterers redelivered late, in February 2020, with 165 MT HSFO (by then out-lawed by the IMO fuel regulations in force 1.1.20). Owners claimed in respect of post-redelivery time and cost of a trip to de-bunker, relying on cl. 10, which set out a sliding scale of permitted redelivery HSFO quantities to be endeavoured. The Tribunal dismissed Owners’ claims based on cl.10 (due to its non-mandatory nature) and on an implied term requiring zero ‘un-burnable’ ROB after 31.12.19 (as the situation was contemplated by neither party). However, ruling that rate differential was not the only measure of late-redelivery damages, the Tribunal held that cl.10 meant that de-bunkering was within the contemplation of the parties and resulting expenditure recoverable by Owners.

Mrs Philipp claimed against her bank, having fallen victim to an 'authorised push payment' ('APP') fraud, whereby she authorised payments totalling £700k to fraudsters' various international a/cs. The SC, restoring the 1st instance judgment, confirmed the bank's duty to carry out its customer's instructions with reasonable care and skill, disobeying them if reasonable grounds for believing fraudulent agency involved. Where, as here, the instructions came directly from the customer (a feature of APP fraud), the bank might have the right - but had no duty - to disobey such instructions.