CAFI and GCTS replaced their original rice sale contract with a second one after Sanctions and payment issues arose. Despite this, GCTS later claimed damages under the first contract. The GAFTA Board ruled against CAFI, but the High Court found GAFTA could not ignore the second contract, so CAFI’s challenge succeeded and the Award was set aside.

Read the full judgment here.

The invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was considered as a default by the lessors of several aircraft leased to a number of Russian airlines. The lessors demanded the aircraft back, but Russian Governmment Resolution 311 prohibited their return. The lessors therefore claimed for their total loss, either under their “All Risks” or their “War Risks” policies. Butcher J found that the proximate cause of the loss was the Russian government’s restraint or detention imposed by GR 311 and that such loss was covered by the lessors

War Risks insurance.

Read the full judgment here.

Read the full judgment here.

In the early 200s, the Plaintiffs invested some EUR14.5m in new mussel-dredging vessels with the encouragement and assistance of the Irish State, who wished to promote the sector and controlled access to stocks in its waters. The State then opened access to Northern Ireland dredgers, with the result that by 2005, mussel yield dropped, collapsing altogether in 2006. The Court ruled that, as the State had actively encouraged the investment, it had a duty to protect the Plaintiff investors against loss of their investments (although not of profits).

Read the full judgment here.

Palmali claimed some USD120m remuneration under a 10+5 year COA said to have been concluded with Litasco, whereby Palmali would exclusively transport for Litasco, from Russian ports, 400,000 - 700,000 mt monthly of Lukoil refinery products. The Court found the arrangement did not amount to an enforceable COA as it was merely an agreement to agree and of no legal effect. In particular, there was no agreement on rates, the parties did not treat the COA as in place (other contracts covering such transactions as took place) and the arrangement was commercially absurd for both.

Read the full judgment here.

Following a collision between KIVELI and AFINA I in the Stenó Elafonísou Strait, the Court determined that the Vessels were meeting on reciprocal or near reciprocal courses, within the meaning of Rule 14 of the Collision Regulations, requiring both Vessels to alter to starboard. KIVELI's improper port turn, along with breaches of Rules 5,7, and 8 (look out, information collecting/use and avoiding action), and a failure of good seamanship under Rule 2, were significant. Although AFINA I acted in accordance with the Rules, her response was deemed not sufficiently prompt. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that KIVELI's faults were substantially greater in both degree and seriousness, warranting an 80/20 apportionment of liability.

Read the full judgment here.

Following delays due to the crew’s lack of COVID-19 PCR certificates, Charterers claimed the vessel was not “in every way fitted for the service” under the charterparty. Owners argued the recap took precedence and the certificates were not required, citing a carve-out for COVID-19 in the BIMCO disease clause. The Commercial Court ruled in Charterers’ favour, holding that PCR compliance was Owners’ responsibility and the deviation and delay were caused by Owners’ failure to comply with known regulations.