In a dispute as to the construction of a contract, the unsuccessful defendant sought to appeal the arbitration award under s.69.  The claimant contended that the contract was oral, and thus the challenge was as to a matter of fact (to which s.69 is inapplicable). Dismissing the claimant’s argument, the Court found that whilst initially oral, the agreement was later reduced to writing such that s.69 was applicable, and that the Arbitrator had erred on the point of construction, such that the award would be set aside.

Read the full judgement here.

Two Congenbills specified that freight was payable as per a C/P dated 12 June 2024 and contained the standard clause incorporating all terms and conditions including law and arbitration of “the charterparty dated as overleaf”. There was no such C/P but the Court ruled that 2 booking notes of that date (issued by Owners and covering the same amount of cargo as specified in the B/Ls) were incorporated.  As these contained a London Arbitration clause (and despite the 1 year time bar having elapsed) , the Court issued an ASI restraining cargo insurers from continuing their damage claim in the Courts of Brazil.

Read the full judgement here.

A voyage C/P provided that in the event of berth unavailability, NOR could be tendered from any usual waiting place. The Vessel tendered NOR at the pilot station some hours before anchoring at a usual place. The Tribunal held that an otherwise valid but premature NOR (as here) was deemed served on commencement of cargo operations. On appeal, the Court ruled that in the absence of waiver of the invalidity, the “Happy Day” ruling was inapplicable and thus the ship was never an arrived ship, and laytime never commenced.

Read the full judgement here.

In January 2023,  having loaded ammonium nitrate at a Sea of Azov port for the Black Sea, under an amended Gencon 94, the Vessel was halted at the Kerch Strait by the Russian Authorities, due to the nature of the cargo. Prolonged delay ensued, followed by eventual landing of the cargo at the load port. The Tribunal held that the interference was unforeseeable, thus not a breach of the safe port warranty.  Nevertheless damages for detention were payable under the incorporated Voywar 93 clause, Charterers having failed to act decisively (in particular by nominating an alternative discharge port).

Read the full judgement here.

Integra sold a quantity of MTBE to Finco, delivery ex-ship ARA (in the event Amsterdam) within a specified 14 day window. By agreement, ex-ship was changed to CIF. Finco alleged repudiatory breaches by Integra on the bases that neither was the nominated ship, “Aramon”, suitable for the Amsterdam facility, nor was the cargo delivered within the agreed window, and sought recovery of their LC payment. The Court ruled that (a) Finco’s stance on suitability of “Aramon” was equivocal such that they could not rely on a repudiatory breach and (b) once changed to CIF, by reason of incorporated BP GTCs, the delivery window was no longer a strict one, such that late arrival did not constitute a repudiatory breach either.

Read the full judgement here.

The Claimants alleged a collision between their fishing vessel and the Defendants’ oil tanker; the Defendants contested the claim, denying any collision, the Claimants failed to provide the ordered security for costs and the claim was struck out by the Court. The Defendants then sought an order for costs against the Claimants’ solicitors, on the basis of an (admitted) misrepresentation they acted for both the fishing vessel and its H&M insurer. The Court found that the Defendants had indeed incurred defence costs which they would not have incurred had they known the true position and ordered the solicitors to pay the Defendants assessed wasted costs in the amount of GBP127,500.

Read the full judgement here.