A T/C provided that Charterers were to redeliver the Vessel with “about” the same quantities of bunkers as on delivery and “should…difference….exceed 5%, Charterers shall compensate Owners losses …”.Charterers redelivered with some 13% less FO and 50% less MGO than on delivery.  The Owners claimed as damages the market rates for the entire shortfalls, contending that the 5% allowance was not applicable if exceeded. The Tribunal held that within 5% gave rise to no breach and only awarded damages for the net shortfalls.

Charterers under an Exxonvoy ordered the Vessel to wait at Singapore EOPL. The Master anchored in Indonesian waters, where the Vessel was arrested by the Navy along with the Master and detained for 8 months. The Tribunal rejected both Owners’ and Charterers’ claims, based respectively on ‘safety’ and breach of Exxonvoy Cl.2 (‘Compliance’). Charterers appealed the latter but in view of the Tribunal’s finding that error in navigation caused the Master to anchor where he did, the Court upheld their ruling that Owners were entitled to rely on Art. IV rule 2(a) of the Hague Rules.  Even if such defence was an ‘anachronism’ (as Charterers argued) the parties had nonetheless agreed to its application by US COGSA.

The Court granted Summary Judgment to Litasco (unpaid Sellers of crude oil to the Defendants) in a Є45m claim, pursuant to a debt re-scheduling Agreement. The Court dismissed the Defendant’s various arguments including those under the UK 2019 Russia Sanctions Regulations, and illegality. The Regulations did not apply to the transaction (involving Swiss/Senegalese entities and West African countries) or to any of the ‘persons’ involved (neither Swiss Litasco, nor its Russian parent, Lukoil, was Sanctioned, nor was any individual with a controlling stake; the Defendants failed to prove that President Putin had de facto control of the Claimants; paying the scheduled debt would not make funds available to a Russian person in connection with the export of energy-related goods.

The Claimant carrier issued 7 ‘Congenbill 1994’ B/Ls in 2021. GA was declared on the voyage and the Defendant cargo insurers issued Average Guarantees. The carrier sought a declaratory judgment that the B/Ls provision that GA “….shall be adjusted….according to the York-Antwerp Rules 1994 or any subsequent modification thereof…” applied the 1994 YAR to the exclusion of the 2004 and 2016 versions, as these were each more than “modification”. The Court ruled that both were properly considered “modifications” and that here the 2016 YAR applied.

Arbitrators rejected Time Charterers’ Weather Routing Company (WRC) performance analysis as it departed from the C/P parameters including as to swell and significant wave height (attributing 2m to DSS3) and failed to recognise routine navigational alterations, casting doubt on reliability generally. However, they found Owners in breach due to Vessel’s hull and propeller fouling, affecting performance and entitling Charterers to deduct for damages (albeit in a lesser amount than pursuant to their WRC analysis).

The claimant former shareholders of Yukos obtained – and sought to enforce – Arbitration Awards determining that the Tribunal had jurisdiction and that RF was in breach and liable to pay them some USD50bn in damages. RF challenged both the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the English Court’s jurisdiction to enforce on the basis of state immunity. In fact, RF alleged that the claimants could not invoke the provision containing RF’s agreement to arbitration as they did not fit in the definition of "investors" as required. The same challenges were brought before Dutch Courts but they were rejected. The Commercial Court held that the Dutch judgments created issue-estoppel precluding RF from re-opening jurisdiction: RF’s challenges already had a determination and it could not seek another one before a different court.