The High Court rejected the Defendant Bank’s attempt to strike out the Claimants’ multi-million GBP fraud claim. The Bank argued the claim was time barred under the Limitation Act, but the Claimants relied on Section 32(1)(a) of the Act alleging deliberate concealment of the fraud which could not reasonably have been discovered earlier. The Court agreed there was a real prospect that the Claimant “could not have discovered the fraud without exceptional measures which it could not reasonably have been expected to take,” and therefore allowed the case to proceed to trial.

A London Arbitration Award ruled that NLNG failed to supply Taleveras with LNG cargoes, causing losses on sub-sales.  The ‘dispositive’ section of  the Award required NLNG to indemnify Taleveras for amounts awarded in sub-sales arbitrations. However, in an ‘analysis’ section, the Award directed that the indemnity was subject to endorsement by the sub-sales tribunals. When Taleveras’ sub-sale liability to Vitol was ascertained at some USD233m, NLNG sought a Court declaration of non-liability, based on the absence of endorsement. The CA upheld the High Court’s refusal, ruling that the Award’s ‘dispositive’ section contained a comprehensive statement of the relief being granted to Taleveras.

In a recent High Court case, MSH Ltd challenged anarbitral award under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, claiming theTribunal lacked jurisdiction since HCS Ltd wasn’t a party to the sale contract. The contract named CTW Ltd as the buyer, but it was later revealed CTW acted asagent for HCS, a trading house. The Court found that HCS, though unnamed, was the true undisclosed principal—evidenced by its provision of the letter of credit — and upheld the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, dismissing the appeal.

In relation to time-charterers’ liabilities arising out of the explosion on MSC Flaminia in July 2012, the SC overruled the CA’s decision, and decided that a charterer can limit its liability to the owner under the Amended 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability. It further held that claims consequential to vessel damage may still be limited under any of the sub-paragraphs of Art 2, otehr than Article 2.1(a).

X-Press Mahanada (“X-PM”), inbound to Chattogram collided in the approaches with outgoing Burgan, both under pilotage. Burgan was in the wrong location but claimed this was due to avoiding a military vessel, SS (a non-party). The Court found that Burgan failed to right her position, failed to keep a proper lookout, or to alert SS promptly. X-PM was not blameless but her faults were not causative. SS was held to be significantly at fault and played a key part in the collision - the Court apportioning her 35% to blame. Burgan’s liability viz-a-viz X-PM was therefore 65%.

Under the amended NYPE 93 T/C trip from Terneuzen to Florida, the Master, having initially agreed and embarked upon Charterers’ recommended, shortest, northern route (via Pentland Firth), turned back in favour of the longer, souther (English Channel) route, in order to avoid Beaufort 9 conditions and waves in excess of 10m. Dismissing Charterers’ damages claim, the Tribunal found that due to legitimate safety concerns, the Owners were not in breach of Charter, and nor did the Master’s initial agreement preclude him from turning back.