In the context of a “freight payable BBB” provision, a London Tribunal decided that there was no obstacle in ordering the Charterers to pay a monetary sum to the Owners, even though the Charterers were (or may have been) sanctioned by the USA.

Delays on the Sagar Ratan due to a COVID-19 outbreak among the crew led to a dispute over hire payments. Pan Ocean (defendants) argued that the BIMCO Infectious or Contagious Diseases Clause applied, while Bunge maintained that the delay was not due to port conditions. The High Court ruled in Bunge’s favour, finding that the discharge port of Bayuqyan was not an“Affected Area” under the BIMCO Clause, as the delays were due to the crew’s infection rather than the port conditions. Consequently, the vessel was deemed off-hire during the period of delay and Pan Ocean’s claim for hire payments rejected.

In November 2016, two undersea electricity cables connecting England and France were damaged after a collision between the Stema Barge II and the Saga Sky, causing the anchors of both vessels to drag over the cables. RTE sought damages from the Stema Interests, Network Rail, and Costain, while Stema UK attempted to limit liability under the 1976 Limitation Convention. After multiple proceedings, the Court of Appeal ruled that Stema UK could not limit its liability under the Convention, and the High Court barred Stema UK from raising a new limitation defense, citing principles of res judicata and cause of action estoppel because it was not an operator and did not thus come within the ambit of the relevant statute.

Winch Design secured a judgment against Mr Le Souef for £733,750 for unpaid invoices, with the court ruling that he - not Somnio Superyachts - was the true contracting party. The contract’s payment terms were upheld, rejecting claims that invoices were contingent on performance, while Mr Le Souef’s argument that Winch had agreed to delay payment was dismissed outright. With no evidence of rectification, estoppel, or a collateral contract, the court found against Mr Le Souef on all counts, awarding Winch the full sum.

Russian courts imposed astronomical financial penalties on Google, amounting to sums as high as £102 nonillion - figures described as “extravagant, indeed other-worldly, sums of money.” The penalties, bearing no relation to compensatory damages, were imposed as repeated penalty payments, doubling periodically with no cap. Seeking to prevent enforcement outside Russia, Google argued that the sums were punitive, unprecedented, and imposed in breach of contractual jurisdiction clauses.

Time-chartered Owners (‘O’) concluded a voyage charter with ‘C’ to carry petcoke from a Gulf port to India; C sub-chartered to ‘S’ on similar terms for the same voyage. When no cargo had been forthcoming at the load port, O redelivered the Vessel, terminated the voyage charter with C, and sought from C in arbitration unpaid freight, demurrage and, as damages, upstream hire. C applied to join S as a party to the arbitration on the grounds that the sub-voyage was a collateral contract and/or S a ‘necessary and proper party’ to the dispute. The Tribunal ruled that the sub-charter was an independent, not collateral contract and neither the 1996 Act, nor the LMAA Terms conferred powers to join parties or consolidate references.