Following theft of a yacht from a Bahamian marina, her owners/ insurers claimed against the marina in tort (negligence) and under the dock lease agreement. Upholding the Bahamian CA, the PC agreed that the marina had not assumed a responsibility to use reasonable care to guard against theft of the yacht (especially where, as here, the owner retained the keys). Similarly, no contractual duty to prevent the theft arose under the lease, such responsibility lying with the yacht owners.

Under specific C/P provisions, Charterers, Vitol succeeded against owners, Rhine, in respect of a 6-day delay in reaching a load port, requiring Vitol to pay a higher price to its seller (derived from Platts on the eventual, rather than expected B/L date). Before the C.A., Rhine re-cast its argument that Vitol’s internal hedging should have been taken into account. The C.A. disallowed the new basis and confirmed that Vitol’s internal hedging was unrelated and did not serve to reduce the damages payable by Rhine.

A COA between MUR as owners and RTI provided for monthly shipments of bauxite, and payments in USD. A Force Majeure Clause allowed suspension of performance in case of defined events which “cannot be overcome by reasonable endeavors from the Party affected”. When RTI’s parent became US-sanctioned, MUR relied on the Clause, contending it could not receive payments. RTI challenged, based on its offer to pay in EUR. The SC agreed with the High Court ruling that “reasonable endeavours” could not encompass non-contractual performance (i.e. EUR instead of USD). MUR was entitled to rely on the Clause.

In 2017 Viterra sold peas and lentils to Sharp, on C&FFO Mundra (and Gafta 24) terms; payment cash against documents, with Viterra’s right to re-sell in the event of default. The goods arrived from Vancouver in June 2017 but Sharp failed to pay. By the time Viterra re-gained possession of the warehoused goods (in Feb 2018) to re-sell, the Mundra prices had risen sharply (due to new local import tariffs). The GAFTA board based Viterra’s damages (some USD5m) on the high comparator of the Feb 2018 C&FFO Mundra price. The matter eventually reached the SC which found that GAFTA erred in so doing and the compensatory principle of damages and the doctrine of mitigation both required that the comparator should be the local ex-warehouse price and not the international import price; in other words, Viterra should not have the benefit of the price-hike.

Following a fire on m/y "Big Kahuna" spreading to other vessels in a Corfu marina and sinking some, including the 1929 wooden ketch "Halcyon”, the English insurers and Owners of the former commenced Limitation proceedings in the English Court. "Halcyon" subsequently sought damages in the Greek Courts (where Limitation was 3x higher) and applied to stay the English action. Declining, the Court ruled that there was no question of the (English interests) "Big Kahuna" 'forum shopping' and no reason why Limitation and underlying claim could not be tried in separate jurisdictions.

Following the sinking of the “X-Press Pearl” and the issue of English Limitation proceedings, the Defendant cargo claimants commenced proceedings in Sri Lanka, directly against the Vessel’s Club “as insurer”. The Club commenced London Arbitration (the forum specified by its Rules) against cargo claimants, seeking a declaration of non-liability; it also sought an anti-suit injunction. The Court ascertained that the claims were asserted under the insurance contract (rather than under any independent rights) so that the Rules, including “pay to be paid” applied, and granted the Club the injunction sought.