Following Owners’ refusal under a C/P incorporating an ‘EPS’ sanctions clause, to load a cargo of oil at a Russian Black Sea port for the Mediterranean, the High Court held that Owners were in repudiatory breach, having no reasonable grounds to apprehend that Sanctioned individuals retained roles within the proposed Shippers. The CA reversed that ruling, finding that the information supplied by Charterers and obtained independently by Owners did leave room for a reasonable apprehension that Sanctioned individuals remained involved, and justified their refusal.

Read the full judgement here.

Owners of the Stena Immaculate failed to break limitation claimed by the Solong, which “ploughed into” the other vessel at anchor. The Admiralty Judge found that, although the knowledge required did not extend to the identity of the innocent vessel, nevertheless limitation was “virtually unbreakable”. The level of culpability had to be such as to deprive the Owners of the benefit of their insurance policy and required the personal knowledge of the Owners’ directing mind (and not just the DPA, for example).

Read the full judgement here.

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.