Case Summaries
Unity Ship Group SA v Euroins Insurance JSC (the “Happy Aras”) [2026] EWHC 7 (Admlty)
The laden “Happy Aras” grounded off Turkey causing damage to ship and cargo. A subsequent GA Adjustment found cargo’s contribution to be some USD1.2m, which Owners sought from the Defendant Average Guarantors. The Court found that the Master made multiple serious errors on the voyage, removed safety checks and kept misleading records, constituting systemic failings and unseaworthiness. Owners failed to show proper research before assigning command to the Master and could not demonstrate the necessary due diligence in compliance with the B/L and applicable Hague Rules. Consequently their claim under the Average Guarantee failed.
London Arbitration 15/25
The dispute arose from delay caused by rejected holds after NOR, with owners asserting an implied obligation on charterers to arrange reinspection, while charterers argued laytime remained suspended until acceptance. The tribunal held that inspection and acceptance lay on charterers’ side of the fence and that an implied term was necessary for commercial coherence, requiring charterers to exercise due diligence to arrange reinspection within a reasonable time. Although immediate reinspection was not required (regardless of practical constraints), charterers were found in breach for failing to take reasonable steps once the vessel was ready, and laytime resumed after a reasonable period had elapsed.
Oceanus Capital SARL v Lloyd’s Insurance Company SA (Re M/V Vyssos) [2025] EWHC 3293 (Comm)
Oceanus provided finance secured by a mortgage over a vessel Vyssos and took mortgagee’s interest insurance (MII). The vessel, trading into Ukrainian waters based on a forged additional war risks cover, struck a mine and was a constructive total loss. Owners’ WRI declined cover for breach of trading warranties. The Court held that the proximate cause of Oceanus’ loss was a mine strike and that the MII Policy responded: the breach of the trading warranties was an insured peril, Oceanus was not privy to it because its conditional consent was induced by fraud, and the loss was fortuitous, so indemnity was payable.
V Ships Limited v Luna Management Corporation & Ors EWHC 3329 (Comm)
London arbitrators issued an Award in a dispute between V-Ships and Luna (managers of “M.T. “Priority”) under a ship management agreement. The Award and a subsequent Injunction, restrained Luna from commencing or continuing any other civil claims arising out of the agreement; nonetheless, Luna and Lambros Stravelakis (adjudged by the Court to be “the directing mind and will of Luna”) persisted in proceedings in Greece. With judgment in the latter imminent, the Court granted V-Ships’ application for a Contempt of Court order against Mr Stravelakis, indicating a real possibility of a custodial sentence being imposed.
Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd v Holbud Ltd [2025] EWHC 3187
Olam sold a cargo of corn to Holbud, FOB one of 4 Black Sea ports (3 Ukraine, 1 Romania) on GAFTA 49 terms. On the day of the invasion in 2022, Olam opted for Ukraine origin and 2 days later nominated Pivdennyi. Holbud nominated a performing vessel under protest; Olam declared Force Majeure whereas Holbud held Olam in repudiatory breach and claimed damages. Pending a ruling by GAFTA, the parties agreed to keep the contract open for 6 weeks. Both GAFTA and, on appeal, the Court, found Olam’s FM declaration baseless and in repudiatory breach, but the Court overturned GAFTA’s award of substantial damages to Holbud, as the (non-substitutable) vessel had engaged in alternative employment before expiry of the 6 week period.
Skyros Maritime Corporation & Anor v HapagLloyd AG (Re ‘SKYROS’ & ‘AGIOS MINAS’) [2025] EWCA Civ 1529
Two Vessels under T/Cs, had been sold. with MOA deliveries on set dates after latest T/C redeliveries. On assumed facts that (i) T/C redelivery was respectively 2 and 4 days late and (ii) Owners never intended to trade the Vessels post T/Cs, a Tribunal had nonetheless held that Owners were entitled to damages for the overrun, based on (increased) market rates. The High Court overturned, substituting only nominal damages. The C.A. restored the Tribunal’s Award, ruling that the MoAs were “collateral” and did not affect the usual compensatory basis of damages. Alternatively, “user” damages (here based on Charterers’ continued use of the Vessels) would achieve the same result.