The Claimant provided a financial facility of USD45m to D1 to support its ship-recycling business, secured by a personal guarantee of D2, who, during negotiations leading to the facility, presented a “Statement of Net Worth” of USD46m. D3 (CFO of D1) issued the required “Approved Borrower Statement”, asserting transactional compliance.  Repayments were not made and D2 provided a misleading “Statement of Delays”. The Court found all 3 Statements false and fraudulent, meant to deceive the Claimant, who relied on them. D2 and D3 were held liable for the torts of deceit and accessory liability respectively and Defendants collectively for unlawful means conspiracy, with damages to be assessed.

Under MOAs for the sale of tankers, Buyers failed to place 10% deposits in escrow as required; Sellers terminated the MOAs. Buyers contended that Sellers’ claims were restricted to prove damages (rather than the fixed deposits), relying on a long-standing principle that a condition precedent (here lodging deposits), if unfulfilled, is dispensed with in calculating damages. Allowing Sellers’ appeal, the CA ruled that the principle was one of construction not law and was unavailable to a party failing, in breach, to fulfill the condition precedent. Buyers could not benefit from their own wrong by thwarting the accrual of the deposits.

Sovcombank sought damages in the Russian courts after UK Sanctions prevented Barclays making payments under a financial facility. Supporting the facility's English exclusive jurisdiction clause, the Court granted Barclays not only an anti- suit injunction against Sovcombank but also a rare anti-enforcement injunction to further guard against a Russian judgment.

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.