Four Vessels were chartered by a single Shelltime C/P providing for English law and jurisdiction. Disputes arose, and the Claimant Charterers issued proceedings against Middle Volga (Russian registered owners) and North Global. The Court upheld Middle Volga’s challenge to jurisdiction, finding that neither the Recap nor the drawn-up (but unsigned) C/P evidenced a contract with them; the Recap merely referred to the Q88, which in turn identified others as registered owners and North Global as disponent owners.  Further, a C/P declaration that “Owners” had no connection with Russia made it clear that North Global rather than Middle Volga were intended to be the contracting party.

Read the full judgment here.

Having been held liable by a PRC Court for damage to a cargo (suffering from inherent vice) the Respondent Owners sought an indemnity from the Claimant Time Charterers both under the ICA and the implied indemnity arising out of NYPE Clause 8. The Tribunal allowed the latter. Dismissing Charterers’ appeal, the Court confirmed that the implied indemnity was engaged, and that there was no special rule for inherent vice, which was not an ordinary trading risk for which Owners were remunerated by hire.

Read the full judgment here.

A&N Seaways challenged an arbitration award which upheld Owners’ withdrawal of the MV Bharadwaj for non-payment of hire, despite Charterers’ “interim response” alleging the C/P was procured by fraud. The Court dismissed Charterers’ argument that the C/P was a nullity and that no valid arbitration agreement existed, refusing late attempts to plead fraud as out of time and inadequately particularised, and holding the claim had no real prospect of success.

Read the full judgment here.

Under a voyage charter, the Claimant Owners refused Charterers’ orders to load a cargo from shippers, Neftisa, relying on a real risk of exposure under the EPS Sanctions clause. Owners relied on screening software indicating links between Neftisa and a Mr Gutseriev, sanctioned by the EU and UK for ties to Belarus’ Lukashenko regime (albeit that he had transferred ownership and stepped down from the board some months earlier). Owners treated Charterers’ consequent cancellation of the C/P as a repudiatory breach. The Court found in Charterers’ favour, ruling that the refusal was not a reasonable or objective assessment of the risk and the Sanctions clause had been wrongly invoked. 

Read the full judgment here.

Read the full judgment here.

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal the High Court’s dismissal of an arbitration appeal brought under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The arbitration, conducted under LCIA Rules, involved an agreement between the parties that any appeal to the English courts must be brought “within thirty (30) days after the decision is rendered.” The Claimant had filed the appeal 30 days after receiving the award, but both courts held that time ran from the date the award was made, not communicated, interpreting “rendered” as equivalent to “made” by analogy with the Act, which draws that distinction. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the parties’ agreement on the 30-day period displaced what would otherwise have been a right under the 1996 Act to apply to extend time.

Read the full judgment here.

Shvidler and Dalston Projects each appealed UK sanctions decisions made under the 2019 Russia (Sanctions) Regulations. Shvidler, a UK citizen, with links to Abramovich, challenged his asset freeze. Dalston, an SPV registered owner of the yacht Phi  (beneficially owned by a Russian businessman) challenged her detention in under a Regulation allowing the Secretary of State to direct the movement of a ship owned, controlled, or chartered by a designated person. The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, holding the interferences were proportionate. It confirmed appellate courts must make a fresh proportionality assessment. In the otherwise unanimous Judgment, Lord Leggatt dissented as to Shvidler’s asset freeze, finding it oppressive, “Orwellian” and lacking a rational link to the sanctions’ aims.

Read the full judgment here.