https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries daily 0.75 2026-03-18 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/monfordmanagement monthly 0.5 2026-03-18 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Monford Management Ltd v Afina Navigation Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 251 (18.03.26) - Two bulk carriers, the KIVELI and AFINA I, collided off the south coast of Greece, causing substantial damage to both. The Admiralty judge found that the COLREGS 1972 applied and allocated primary fault to the KIVELI (80:20). CA considered the challenge as to whether the encounter qualified as a “head on” situation under Rule 41 but upheld the trial decision, confirming that full visibility of sidelights is not required, and that vessels on reciprocal or near-reciprocal courses fall within the Rule. The CA clarified that Rule 14 obligations continue until the collision risk ends and noted that nautical assessors are not appointed as a matter of course on appeals, requiring parties to justify their necessity and scope. The appeal was dismissed. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-4/26-ljhkx monthly 0.5 2026-03-18 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - SLB &amp; Ors v PAK &amp; Ors [2026] EWHC 449 (Comm) (12.03.26) - Buyers terminated ten shipbuilding contracts after the yard failed to procure refund guarantees within the contractual 120 day period. They also claimed loss of bargain damages. The arbitral tribunal held that the obligation was an innominate term, such that Owners were not entitled to loss of bargain damages in addition to cancellation. The Court dismissed Buyers’ section 69 appeal, ruling that the obligation was not a condition but an innominate term, the specific contractual right of cancellation being the remedy for such default. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-4/26 monthly 0.5 2026-03-18 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 4/26 (2026) LMLN 1203 - Time Charterers relied on a WRC Report to justify deductions from hire for underperformance and overconsumption based on (i) extrapolated ‘good weather’ underperformance; alternatively (ii) a fouled hull on delivery. The Tribunal dismissed the former as it failed to recognise the C/P ‘adverse current’ parameter and the latter as Charterers’ survey was inconclusive. Charterers’ contention that it was underperformance which caused Owners to incur regulatory costs under incorporated BIMCO emissions clauses (thus relieving Charterers from any reimbursement obligation) failed for the same reason. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/mercuriaenergy-v-onexdmcc monthly 0.5 2026-03-18 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Mercuria Energy Trading SA v Onex DMCC [2026] EWHC 130 (Comm) - Mercuria bought a cargo of high-sulphur straight-run fuel oil from Onex on CIF terms, incorporating the BP General Terms. After discharge, part of the cargo was found to contain elevated organic chlorides. Mercuria claimed breach, arguing that the contractual term “typicals” created a quality warranty and that the cargo no longer met the contractual description. The Court rejected those arguments, holding that “typicals” were descriptive only and not contractual guarantees, and that organic chlorides were not part of the agreed specifications. The cargo retained its commercial identity. The buyer’s claim was dismissed. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/trafigura-v-gupta monthly 0.5 2026-02-06 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Trafigura PTE Ltd &amp; Anor v Gupta &amp; Ors [2026] EWHC 159 (Comm) (30.01.26) - Trafigura PTE Ltd & another sued Prateek Gupta and others in the Commercial Court, alleging a multi-hundred-million-dollar fraud in nickel trading, where high-grade LME-grade nickel was purportedly sold but worthless material delivered instead. After a month-long trial, the Court found in favour of Trafigura, holding Gupta and the corporate defendants liable for the fraud and rejecting their defences. The judgment recognised that Trafigura was induced into contracts by false and fraudulent representations and awarded a decisive victory for the commodities trader. Trafigura succeeded and the defendants were found liable for fraudulent misrepresentation. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/londonarb-3/26 monthly 0.5 2026-02-06 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 3/26 (2026) LMLN 1203 - The charterers claimed overpaid hire under a time charter, alleging underperformance, while the owners denied liability and counterclaimed. The tribunal determined preliminary issues concerning weather evidence and performance warranties. It held that weather should be assessed by deck logs unless the charterers proved a consistent discrepancy, and that the burden of proof lay on them. Of two competing definitions, the tribunal found that the narrower “good weather” definition applied. The performance warranty was not continuing but applied only at the date of the charter. Positive currents were not to be discounted. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/moevetrading-v-maeltrading monthly 0.5 2026-01-20 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Moeve Trading SAU v Mael Trading FZ LLC [2026] EWHC 17 (Comm) - Moeve sold gasoline and gasoil to Mael on FOB Algeciras terms, with payment due 60 days after shipment under confirmed letters of credit (LCs). The cargo was shipped and discharged, but the issuing bank refused payment. Moeve sued for the price under S.49 Sale of Goods Act 1979. The Buyer argued that arranging the LCs discharged its payment obligation and raised a counterclaim for demurrage and delay. The Court rejected those arguments, holding that title had passed, the Buyer had received the cargo, the LCs were not payment, and the counterclaim was time-barred and excluded. The Seller obtained summary judgment, and the Court refused the Buyer’s application for a stay of execution. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/londonarbitration1/26 monthly 0.5 2026-01-20 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 1/26 - Charterers claimed off-hire and a deduction from hire under a time charter trip, alleging that hull fouling on delivery reduced the vessel’s speed and performance and citing The Divinegate. Owners resisted the claim, arguing that the performance warranty was not engaged because there was insufficient “good weather” data within the meaning of the charterparty, and that The Divinegate was irrelevant. The Tribunal held that underwater fouling constituted a defect in the hull capable of engaging the off-hire clause and that Charterers were entitled to a deduction from hire, notwithstanding the lack of qualifying good-weather period under the performance clause. The performance-evidence regime did not prevent recovery where loss of speed was otherwise established. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/unityshipgroup-v-euroinsinsurancejsc monthly 0.5 2026-01-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg 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. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/londonarb15/25 monthly 0.5 2026-01-07 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - 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. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/oceanus-v-lloyds monthly 0.5 2026-01-07 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - 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. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/vships monthly 0.5 2025-12-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - V Ships Limited v Luna Management Corporation &amp; 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. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/olam monthly 0.5 2025-12-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - 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. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/skyros-and-agiosminas monthly 0.5 2025-12-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Skyros Maritime Corporation &amp; Anor v &nbsp;HapagLloyd AG (Re ‘SKYROS’ &amp; ‘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. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/nefelia monthly 0.5 2025-11-27 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Nefelia Shipping SA &amp; Anor v Mosaic Fertilizantes Do Brazil LTDA &amp; Anor [2025] EWHC 2941 - Claimant shipowners (Nefelia Shipping SA) issued English proceedings for general average contributions against Brazilian Defendant (Mosaic Fertilizantes do Brazil LTDA and Seguros Sura SA) and attempted service in Brazil via diplomatic channels. Severe administrative delays followed, forcing the Claimants to obtain two extensions of time for service. The Defendants challenged the second extension, but the Court held that the delays stemmed from the diplomatic process rather than any fault of the Claimants, and the extension was upheld. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/msamlin-v-kingtrader monthly 0.5 2025-11-20 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - MS Amlin Marine NV v King Trader Ltd &amp; Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1387 - Time Chartereres, Bintan Mining Corporation, were held by the Tribunal to be responsible for the grounding of the Solomon Trader and liable to Owners for approximately USD $47m. Before the award could be satisfied, Time Charterers were wound up under the Insolvency Act. The Court of Appeal upheld the “pay to be paid” provision in Amlin’s Charterers’ Marine Policy, such that it did not respond to Owners’ claim. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/processandindustrialdevelopments-v-fedrepublicofnigeria monthly 0.5 2025-11-12 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Process &amp; Industrial Developments Ltd v The Federal Republic of Nigeria [2025] UKSC 36 - Nigeria succeeded in setting aside P&ID’s 2 fraudulently-obtained Arbitration Awards against it. In so doing it incurred legal costs said to be GBP44m. P&ID argued that the costs award against it should be made in naira, not sterling, as the latter would result in a windfall to Nigeria, the naira having depreciated substantially in the decade or so since the Arbitration Awards. Rejecting that contention (and upholding the Courts below) the SC ruled that costs should be awarded to Nigeria in sterling, quoting the discretionary rather than compensatory nature of a costs award and the fact that Nigeria had paid its legal team in sterling. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-11/25 monthly 0.5 2025-10-22 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 11/25 (2025) 1195 LMLN 2 - Under an amended NYPE T/C for a China-Canada trip, the Vessel failed to follow the route recommended by Charterers’ weather routing company, choosing instead one which in the event was 320 miles longer, on the (later-advanced) grounds that it better avoided a forecast typhoon. The LMAA SCP Arbitrator found that the Master’s contemporaneous justification made no reference to navigational safety (and indeed took the Vessel nearer the typhoon) and the longer route taken was solely to facilitate a crew change. Owners were responsible for the additional time and consumption. The Tribunal however dismissed Charterers’ claim that despite there being no “good weather” days as defined in the c/p, the Vessel nevertheless underperformed if weather and current factors were applied to average speed attained. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/songaandchemical-v-kairos monthly 0.5 2025-10-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2025] EWCA Civ 1227 - Songa, Owners under a bareboat c/p on the Barecon 2001 form, terminated early (legitimately) whilst the Vessel was at Stockton USA but required redelivery at Trogir, Croatia. Cl.29 specified repossession “at current or next port…or at a place convenient to [Owners]…[who]…shall arrange…to board as soon as reasonably practicable…[when]…Vessel shall be deemed to be repossessed”. Charterers complied but claimed damages. The Tribunal ruled that Trogir was “objectively convenient to Owners” and valid. Both the High Court and the C.A. disagreed, finding that if the Vessel is in port when termination occurs, the sentences of Cl.29 when read together mean that Owners must repossess at that port unless impracticable or impossible. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/orion-v-greatasia monthly 0.5 2025-10-09 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Orion Shipping and Trading LLC v Great Asia Maritime Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1210 - Under an NSF 2012 Orion agreed to sell the Lila Lisbon to Great Asia for USD 15 million. The cancelling date was 15 October 2021. Delivery was delayed due to Orion’s negligent failure to arrange crew flights, and a berthing slot was missed. Buyers terminated and claimed USD 1.85m loss of bargain. The Tribunal upheld the claim, but the High Court disagreed, holding Clause 14 didn’t permit such damages absent a repudiatory breach. The Court of Appeal decided that Sellers were required to exercise due diligence to meet the cancelling date. Given Orion’s proven negligence, Buyers were entitled to compensation including loss of bargain. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/africandcsarl-v-aastar monthly 0.5 2025-10-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - African Distribution Company SARL v AASTAR Trading Pte Ltd [2025] EWHC 2428 - AASTAR supplied rice to ADC under a series of 2021/22 contracts providing for GAFTA Arbitration; in July 2023, claiming sums contractually due, AASTAR sent notices of arbitration to generic email addresses for ADC. In the absence of response from ADC, GAFTA appointed an Arbitrator who issued an Award in February 2024 awarding AASTAR most of its claim. In August 2024 (long after the Arbitration Act’s 28 day period) ADC alleged non-service of the notices and sought to challenge the Award under ss. 67 and 68 (procedural irregularity/breach of arbitration rules) and an extension of time to do so. The Court declined the extension as the contracts had not ruled out email service. Instead, it permitted a limited Application under s72, which contains no time limit and preserves ss. 67 and 68 rights for alleged parties who have taken no part in the Arbitration; the Application to be based upon the report of a single forensic IT expert. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/cetoshippingcorp-v-savoryshippinginc monthly 0.5 2025-09-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Ceto Shipping Corporation v Savory Shipping Inc [2025] EWHC 2033 (Comm) - On expiry of a 3 year bareboat C/P, Owners (Savory) were obliged to transfer title of the Vessel to Charterers (Ceto) if the latter had “paid all… sums due under this Charter and… under … [a] Management Agreement with [a 3rd party].” Despite earlier termination of the Management Agreement, sums remained due under it at the end of the C/P. The Court upheld Savory’s refusal to transfer title, ruling that the right was available only at the precise expiry of the C/P term and even later payment by Ceto of the sums would not revive the transfer obligation. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-9/25 monthly 0.5 2025-09-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 9/25 (2025) LMLN 1192 - Under a sub-T/C for a trip to Persian Gulf, intention Iraq, with grain in bulk, the Vessel waited some 2.5 days off the discharge port, on upstream owners’ instructions, the latter having received (just 5 hours’ steaming away) a notice from Shippers/Sellers that that they had not been paid for the cargo (worth some USD16.8m). Dismissing Charterers’ off-hire claim, the Tribunal found that any shipowner could be expected to pause for thought and obtain advice, especially given the value of the cargo, the lateness of the notice and an intervening weekend. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/white-rock monthly 0.5 2025-09-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - White Rock Corporation Ltd v Middle Volga Shipping Company &amp; Anor [2025] - 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. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sino monthly 0.5 2025-09-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Sino East Transportation Ltd v Grand Amazon Shipping Ltd [2025] EWHC 1990 (Comm) (30 July 2025) - 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. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/allianz monthly 0.5 2025-09-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - A&amp;N Seaways and Projects PVT Ltd v Allianz BulkCarriers DMCC [2025] EWHC 2126 (Comm) (13 August 2025) - 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. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/tonzip monthly 0.5 2025-09-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Tonzip Maritime Ltd v 2Rivers PTE Ltd [2025] EWHC 2036 (Comm) 31 July 2025 - 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. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/eronat-v-cnpc monthly 0.5 2025-08-07 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Eronat v CNPC International (Chad) Ltd &amp; Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 1054 (01 August 2025) - 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. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/shvidleranddalston monthly 0.5 2025-08-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Shvidler v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs &amp; Dalston Projects Ltd &amp; Ors v Secretary of State for Transport [2025] UKSC 30 - 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. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/urania-v-nordtrade monthly 0.5 2025-07-23 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Urania Shipping Company Ltd v Nordtrade SIA &amp; Anor [2025] EWHC 1835 (Comm) (18 July 2025) - Owners of the “Ida” purportedly chartered her brokers via Nordtrade (D2) to BFT for a St Petersburg-Izmir wood pellet voyage. On arrival, freight was outstanding. Although later settled (via Nordtrade), Owners withheld discharge pending demurrage, prompting BFT to claim the C/P. Owners settled with BFT but claimed against D2 for breach of warranty of authority. D2 was served at its registered principal Turkish office (although they did not, in fact, notice the papers for some 4 months) and, in the absence of acknowledgment of service, had default judgment (in excess of USD1m) entered against them. D2 applied to set this aside. The Court granted the application, holding the delay was not unreasonable and D2 had a real prospect of establishing their co-defendant D1 was the broker and that BFT gave actual authority to them. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/oceanclapshipping-v-globaloffshoreservices monthly 0.5 2025-07-23 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Ocean Clap Shipping Ltd v Global Offshore Services BV &amp; Anor [2025] EWHC 1591 (Comm) (26 June 2025) - “Ben Nevis” and “Kailash” were each bareboat chartered by their respective Owners (C1 and C2) for 6 year terms to D1. After about 2 years, hire ceased to be paid and Cs claimed against D1 and Guarantors D2. The Court dismissed D1’s reliance on a “Repossession Agreement” finding D1 liable for some USD46.4m and USD30m respectively. It also dismissed D2’s reliance on the 6 year term of the Guarantees, holding that it required only that the liability arose in that period, not commencement of suit. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/ksyjuiceblends-v-citrosuco monthly 0.5 2025-07-09 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] EWCA Civ 760 (19.06.2025) - KSY appealed a decision over the pricing term in its 2018 orange pulp supply contract with Citrosuco, whereby the price for part of the quantity was left “open” for annual agreement. KSY argued the contract was unenforceable without a fixed price. The CA disagreed, finding an implied term required payment of a reasonable or market price based on the orange juice trading market. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/vandanor-v-k monthly 0.5 2025-07-09 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - V &amp; Anor v K (Re Arbitration Act 1996) [2025] EWHC 1523 (Comm) (19.06.2025) - Claimants challenged a LMAA arbitration award, alleging apparent bias after arbitrator Mr H failed to disclose prior appointments by the Defendant’s solicitors, Reed Smith LLP, in unrelated matters on behalf of other clients. They argued this gave rise to justifiable doubts as to impartiality. The court rejected the challenge, finding no real possibility of bias and confirming that the non-disclosure was consistent with standard LMAA practice. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/cafi-v-gtcs monthly 0.5 2025-06-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - CAFI - Commodity &amp; Freight Integrators DMCC v GTCS Trading DMCC [2025] EWHC 1350 (Comm) (03.06.2025) - 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. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/russianaircraftlessorpolicyclaims monthly 0.5 2025-06-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Russian Aircraft Lessor Policy Claims [2025] EWHC 1430 &nbsp; - 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. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/barlowandors-v-ministerforcomms monthly 0.5 2025-07-09 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Barlow &amp; Ors v The Minister for Communications, Marine &amp; Natural Resources &amp; Ors (Approved) [2025] IESC 14 (11 April 2025) &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; - In the early 2000s, 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. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/palmali-v-litasco monthly 0.5 2025-05-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Palmali Shipping SA v Litasco SA [2025] EWHC 1149 (Comm) (23 May 2025) &nbsp; &nbsp; - 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. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/monfordmanagement-v-afinanav monthly 0.5 2025-07-09 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Monford Management Ltd (Owners of the KIVELI) v Afina Navigation Ltd (Owners of the AFINA I) [2025] EWHC 1185 (Admlty) (16 May 2025) - 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. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/londonarbitration-8/25 monthly 0.5 2025-05-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 8/25 (2025) 1184 LMLN 1 - 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. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/superfasttrading-v-boi monthly 0.5 2025-05-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Super Fast Trading Ltd v Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland &amp; Anor [2025] EWHC 871 (Comm) (11.04.25) The High Court rejected the Defendant Bank’s attempt to strike out the Claimants’ multi-million GBP fraud claim. The Bank argued the claim was time barred under the Limitation Act, but the Claimants relied on Section 32(1)(a) of the Act alleging deliberate concealment of the fraud which could not reasonably have been discovered earlier. The Court agreed there was a real prospect that the Claimant “could not have discovered the fraud without exceptional measures which it could not reasonably have been expected to take,” and therefore allowed the case to proceed to trial. Read the full judgment here. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/nigeria-v-taleveras monthly 0.5 2025-05-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Nigeria LNG Ltd v Taleveras Petroleum Trading DMCC [2025] EWCA Civ 457 (16.04.25) A London Arbitration Award ruled that NLNG failed to supply Taleveras with LNG cargoes, causing losses on sub-sales. The ‘dispositive’ section of the Award required NLNG to indemnify Taleveras for amounts awarded in sub-sales arbitrations. However, in an ‘analysis’ section, the Award directed that the indemnity was subject to endorsement by the sub-sales tribunals. When Taleveras’ sub-sale liability to Vitol was ascertained at some USD233m, NLNG sought a Court declaration of non-liability, based on the absence of endorsement. The CA upheld the High Court’s refusal, ruling that the Award’s ‘dispositive’ section contained a comprehensive statement of the relief being granted to Taleveras. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/msh-msc monthly 0.5 2025-04-17 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/eebf0bd6-5f2c-45ea-a56e-ee2c2c3e6217/pexels-hormel-media-1095814%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - MSH Ltd v HCS Ltd [2025] EWHC 815 (Comm) (07.04.2025) In a recent High Court case, MSH Ltd challenged anarbitral award under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, claiming theTribunal lacked jurisdiction since HCS Ltd wasn’t a party to the sale contract. The contract named CTW Ltd as the buyer, but it was later revealed CTW acted asagent for HCS, a trading house. The Court found that HCS, though unnamed, was the true undisclosed principal—evidenced by its provision of the letter of credit — and upheld the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, dismissing the appeal. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/mscflaminia-2025 monthly 0.5 2025-04-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/56f7edaa-e3c9-499a-93bd-d759eea65912/00a73f1b7552c7208099dd80f3fc5c07.jpg Case Summaries - MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v Conti 11 Container Schiffahrts-GmbH &amp; Co KG MS “MSC Flaminia” [2025] UKSC 14 In relation to time-charterers’ liabilities arising out of the explosion on MSC Flaminia in July 2012, the SC overruled the CA’s decision, and decided that a charterer can limit its liability to the owner under the Amended 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability. It further held that claims consequential to vessel damage may still be limited under any of the sub-paragraphs of Art 2, other than Article 2.1(a). Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/x-pressmahanada-v-burgan monthly 0.5 2025-04-02 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-6/25-lmln1180 monthly 0.5 2025-03-25 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6a4f7bf7-7f05-4d12-aa34-6a7916ad534a/1200x630_74882abea0e6e21be4f4b6da0e93a780.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 6/25 (2025) LMLN 1180 Under the amended NYPE 93 T/C trip from Terneuzen to Florida, the Master, having initially agreed and embarked upon Charterers’ recommended, shortest, northern route (via Pentland Firth), turned back in favour of the longer, souther (English Channel) route, in order to avoid Beaufort 9 conditions and waves in excess of 10m. Dismissing Charterers’ damages claim, the Tribunal found that due to legitimate safety concerns, the Owners were not in breach of Charter, and nor did the Master’s initial agreement preclude him from turning back. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/tanga-v-emirates monthly 0.5 2025-04-10 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6a4f7bf7-7f05-4d12-aa34-6a7916ad534a/1200x630_74882abea0e6e21be4f4b6da0e93a780.jpg Case Summaries - Tanga Pharmaceuticals Plastics Ltd &amp; Ors v Emirates Shipping Line FZE [2025] EWHC 368 (27.02.25) Following the MV Allion’s engine failure in September 2021, Tanga Pharmaceuticals Plastics Limited & Ors sought damages for cargo loss. Defendants Emirates Shipping Line FZE contended that the claims were time-barred under the Hague Rules, which require claims to be commenced within one year of delivery or the date when the goods should have been delivered. The Claimants argued that the time bar should not apply due to ongoing settlement discussions. The High Court upheld the Claimant’s position, finding the claims were not time-barred under the Hague Rules. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sdrebel-v-elise monthly 0.5 2025-03-13 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/f95364f0-de25-43cc-91c8-be9cef4b00a4/sd+rebel.jpg Case Summaries - SD Rebel BV &amp; Anor v Elise Tankschiffahrt KG [2025] EWHC 376 (Admlty) (27.02.25) During her voyage from Rotterdam to Antwerp, Stela collided with a mole structure separating waterways and ran aground. VB Rebel with consent (but no LOF) assisted in refloating Stela after which her Master signed a “Certificate of Safe Delivery” specifying disputes to be “settled in London in accordance with English law”. Nonetheless, Stela commenced and (despite an English ASI) continued proceedings in Rotterdam, where the Dutch Court ruled the jurisdiction clause too vague. The Admiralty Court held that “London” clearly meant Courts in London, and the operation amounted to “salvage”. The Court made a remuneration award, issued a final ASI, and awarded costs expended in defence of the Dutch proceedings plus an indemnity for any liability ascertained in Rotterdam. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arb-dec24-unpublished monthly 0.5 2025-03-06 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/d4b4f71e-ab75-4d2c-8586-ef9e27cbd4b7/1e2b2ed19790709bf9f84a31fdca102a.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration December 2024 (unpublished) In the context of a “freight payable BBB” provision, a London Tribunal decided that there was no obstacle in ordering the Charterers to pay a monetary sum to the Owners, even though the Charterers were (or may have been) sanctioned by the USA. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sagar-ratan monthly 0.5 2025-02-27 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/49505a03-c6af-4344-9d8c-511de1363b73/chris-pagan-sfjS-FglvU4-unsplash-cropped.jpg Case Summaries - Bunge S.A. v Pan Ocean Co. Ltd. [2025] EWHC 193 - “Sagar Ratan” Delays on the Sagar Ratan due to a COVID-19 outbreak among the crew led to a dispute over hire payments. Pan Ocean (defendants) argued that the BIMCO Infectious or Contagious Diseases Clause applied, while Bunge maintained that the delay was not due to port conditions. The High Court ruled in Bunge’s favour, finding that the discharge port of Bayuqyan was not an“Affected Area” under the BIMCO Clause, as the delays were due to the crew’s infection rather than the port conditions. Consequently, the vessel was deemed off-hire during the period of delay and Pan Ocean’s claim for hire payments rejected. Read the full judgment here. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/reseau-v-costain monthly 0.5 2025-02-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/fc33268f-a84f-4cd2-a5bd-969595436295/space-station-english-channel-nasa.jpg Case Summaries - Reseau de Transport d’Électricité v Costain Ltd [2025] EWHC 73 (Admlty) -(30.01.25) In November 2016, two undersea electricity cables connecting England and France were damaged after a collision between the Stema Barge II and the Saga Sky, causing the anchors of both vessels to drag over the cables. RTE sought damages from the Stema Interests, Network Rail, and Costain, while Stema UK attempted to limit liability under the 1976 Limitation Convention. After multiple proceedings, the Court of Appeal ruled that Stema UK could not limit its liability under the Convention, and the High Court barred Stema UK from raising a new limitation defense, citing principles of res judicata and cause of action estoppel because it was not an operator and did not thus come within the ambit of the relevant statute. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/winch-superyachts monthly 0.5 2025-02-07 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/2d013283-74e9-42cc-857d-bbf087906f65/1399%2B19-09-12%2B-%2BAft%2BNight%2B-%2BCredit_3A%2BWinch%2BDesign.jpg Case Summaries - Winch Design Ltd v Le Souf; Somnio Superyachts Pty Ltd (3rd Party) [2025] Winch Design secured a judgment against Mr Le Souef for £733,750 for unpaid invoices, with the court ruling that he - not Somnio Superyachts - was the true contracting party. The contract’s payment terms were upheld, rejecting claims that invoices were contingent on performance, while Mr Le Souef’s argument that Winch had agreed to delay payment was dismissed outright. With no evidence of rectification, estoppel, or a collateral contract, the court found against Mr Le Souef on all counts, awarding Winch the full sum. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/googlellc-v-naotsargrad monthly 0.5 2025-01-29 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/31f2a162-eff7-4710-a8ec-e0c9bb7b1cc5/Google-logo-Googleplex-headquarters-Mountain-View-California.jpg Case Summaries - Google LLC &amp; Anor v NAO Tsargrad Media &amp; Ors [2025] EWHC 94 (Comm) (22 January 2025) Russian courts imposed astronomical financial penalties on Google, amounting to sums as high as £102 nonillion - figures described as “extravagant, indeed other-worldly, sums of money.” The penalties, bearing no relation to compensatory damages, were imposed as repeated penalty payments, doubling periodically with no cap. Seeking to prevent enforcement outside Russia, Google argued that the sums were punitive, unprecedented, and imposed in breach of contractual jurisdiction clauses. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/londonarbitration-1/25 monthly 0.5 2025-01-29 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/b2e48545-71e3-4dae-8839-bb3f3b8bda19/ship-tracking-at-sea-1024x576.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 1/25 (2025) 1176 LMLN 1 Time-chartered Owners (‘O’) concluded a voyage charter with ‘C’ to carry petcoke from a Gulf port to India; C sub-chartered to ‘S’ on similar terms for the same voyage. When no cargo had been forthcoming at the load port, O redelivered the Vessel, terminated the voyage charter with C, and sought from C in arbitration unpaid freight, demurrage and, as damages, upstream hire. C applied to join S as a party to the arbitration on the grounds that the sub-voyage was a collateral contract and/or S a ‘necessary and proper party’ to the dispute. The Tribunal ruled that the sub-charter was an independent, not collateral contract and neither the 1996 Act, nor the LMAA Terms conferred powers to join parties or consolidate references. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/port-of-sheerness monthly 0.5 2025-01-08 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/b2e48545-71e3-4dae-8839-bb3f3b8bda19/ship-tracking-at-sea-1024x576.jpg Case Summaries - Port of Sheerness Ltd v Swire Shipping Pte Ltd [2025] EWHC 7 (Admlty) Swire, charterers of the Vessel “Kiating” had contracted with the Port of Sheerness for discharge of the Vessel’s plywood cargo, which in the event, was found to have shifted on the voyage, requiring several more days discharging than estimated. As well as additional charges for stevedoring, shiftings and equipment (all paid by Swire) the Port claimed some GBP250,000 extra charges based on a contractual clause: “…where a vessel remains alongside…for a longer period than necessary for loading and discharging…a period toll will be charged for each 24 hour period…” namely £137.80 per day per linear metre of LOA. Dismissing the claim, the Court found that the clause was restricted to cases where a vessel failed to depart after operations. It also found that other powers of the Port to raise additional charges were inapplicable (as here) the Port had not actually incurred them; nor was a quantum meruit appropriate where the parties had stipulated the circumstances for additional charges. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sea-consortium monthly 0.5 2025-01-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/b2e48545-71e3-4dae-8839-bb3f3b8bda19/ship-tracking-at-sea-1024x576.jpg Case Summaries - Sea Consortium Pte Ltd (t/a X-Press Feeders) &amp; Ors v Bengal Tiger Line Pte Ltd &amp; Ors [2024] EWHC 3174 (Admlty) (12 December 2024) Disputes arose following the fire and subsequent sinking of the container vessel “X-press Pearl”. The Vessel was subject to various contractual arrangements at the time of the sinking including a bareboat and a time-charter. Time charterers had made further contractual arrangements including (i) a transport services agreement with Maersk (ii) a slot contract with BTL and (iii) a connecting carrier agreement with MSC. Time charterers had constituted a limitation fund under the 1976 Convention. Maersk, BTL and MSC sought, and the Court granted, a declaration that they too were entitled to limit liability under the Convention, as each was a ‘shipowner’ within Article 1(2) of the Convention. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/hapag-lloyd monthly 0.5 2025-01-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/b2e48545-71e3-4dae-8839-bb3f3b8bda19/ship-tracking-at-sea-1024x576.jpg Case Summaries - Hapag-Lloyd AG v Skyros Maritime Corporation &amp; Anor [2024] EWHC 3139 (Comm) (13 December 2024) Time Charterers redelivered 2 Vessels some days late. Some months earlier, Owners had entered MOAs for the sale of both Vessels. Arbitrators determined a preliminary issue on the assumptions that (i) the T/Crates had risen substantially since conclusion of the fixtures and (ii) Ownerswould not have re-let after timeous redeliveries but simply delivered to Buyers. The Tribunal found in these circumstances that Owners were entitled to “substantial damages, compensation or other monetary relief”. On appeal, the Court disagreed; in the normal course damages would compensate for loss of opportunity to take advantage of the market rate, but here Owners lost no such opportunity because of the MOAs, so only nominal damages were appropriate. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-14/24 monthly 0.5 2025-01-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/b2e48545-71e3-4dae-8839-bb3f3b8bda19/ship-tracking-at-sea-1024x576.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 14/24 (2024) 1173 LMLN 3 Owners claimed some USD4.9m from Charterers in respect of unpaid hire, bunkers and expenses. Charterers (without any specifics) contended that Owners had issued unauthorised B/Ls, had failed (by discharging the carg0) to enforce Charterers’ lien for unpaid freight (having, they suggested, received payment direct from sub-charterers) and sought USD3.6m damages. Responding to Owners’ application for a partial final award, the Tribunal was only willing to award the difference of USD1.3m, on the basis that if Charterers’ claim were made out, Owners would have deprived them of the use of the Vessel by not retaining the cargo on board. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/ovc monthly 0.5 2025-01-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/b2e48545-71e3-4dae-8839-bb3f3b8bda19/ship-tracking-at-sea-1024x576.jpg Case Summaries - O v C [2024] EWHC 2838 (Comm) - KBD Immediately after shipment on board O’s Vessel of a cargo of naptha, Charterers (‘C’) became subject to US sanctions. O purportedly terminated the C/P and in Arbitration sought an order for sale of the cargo, with the proceeds payable to a blocked US a/c in accordance with a US license. C opposes the sale and claims damages for conversion of its cargo, O (it says) being outside the reach of US sanctions. C contends that proceeds of sale should be paid into the English Court in support of the arbitration. The Court agreed that given the underlying arbitration, payment to Court was the appropriate option, outweighing O’s concerns about US prosecution, which the Court assessed as very low. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/fimbank monthly 0.5 2024-11-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/b2e48545-71e3-4dae-8839-bb3f3b8bda19/ship-tracking-at-sea-1024x576.jpg Case Summaries - Fimbank Plc (Appellant) v KCH Shipping Co Ltd (Respondent) [2024] UKSC 38 The Supreme Court held that the time bar in Article III Rule 6 of the Hague and Hague Visby Rules applies to claims for misdelivery after discharge and other breaches occurring post-discharge but before delivery. Rejecting arguments limiting the time bar to the “period of responsibility” (loading to discharge), Lord Hamblen confirmed its broader scope, including pre-loading breaches linked to specific goods. This decision resolves a longstanding legal dispute, clarifying the Rules’ application to breaches beyond the traditional “period of responsibility”. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/ameropa monthly 0.5 2024-11-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/b2e48545-71e3-4dae-8839-bb3f3b8bda19/ship-tracking-at-sea-1024x576.jpg Case Summaries - AMS Ameropa Marketing and Sales AG &amp; Anor v Ocean Unity Navigation Inc (RE ‘Doric Valour’) [2024] EWCA Civ 1312 Ameropa, having sold 50,000mt of soybeans to Oilex under CIF terms, sought to recover damages from Owners after the cargo was found dammaged upon discharge, as the assignee of Oilex’s rights under the bills of lading. The owners argued that Oilex should account for payments received from Ameropa under the sale contract (being the difference between the sale price and the salvage price of the damaged cargo). The Court rejected Owners’ appeal, affirming that Ameropa was entitled to recover the difference between the sound value and the actual value of the cargo which had been damaged, despite Oilex having been compensated by Ameropa, effectively, for this amount. The payment under the sale contract did not affect the claim against the Owners. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/parsdome monthly 0.5 2024-11-13 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/b2e48545-71e3-4dae-8839-bb3f3b8bda19/ship-tracking-at-sea-1024x576.jpg Case Summaries - Parsdome Holdings Ltd v Plastic Energy Global SL [2024] EWCA Civ 1293 (29.10.24) In a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, the BVI Claimant (noted by the Court to be financially challenged) was ordered to provide security for the Defendant’s costs at various stages, 12 days before trial, cleared funds for the last two tranches (totalling almost GBP 1.3m) had still not been paid into Court, nor the trial fee. The High Court allowed a further 6 days for the Claimant to comply, before striking out the claim. The Claimant appealed, citing authority that their uncleared cheque paid into Court within the deadline sufficed. The CA distinguished that case and upheld the High Court ruling of strike out. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/filatona monthly 0.5 2024-11-13 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/b2e48545-71e3-4dae-8839-bb3f3b8bda19/ship-tracking-at-sea-1024x576.jpg Case Summaries - Filatona Trading Ltd &amp; Anor v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &amp; Sullivan UK LLP [2024] EWHC (Comm) (14.10.24) The Claimants sought a “Norwich Pharmacal” order against a firm of Solicitors requiring them to disclose the identity of a London-based intelligence consultancy which obtained a report from an alleged wrongdoer, said by the Claimants to be a forgery designed to deceive the Court and Tribunal in other proceedings, defrauding the Claimants of some USD 300m. The Court granted the Order on the grounds that it was a necessary and proportionate response to the alleged wrongdoing. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/stournaras-v-maersk monthly 0.5 2024-10-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/b2e48545-71e3-4dae-8839-bb3f3b8bda19/ship-tracking-at-sea-1024x576.jpg Case Summaries - Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2024] EWHC 2494 (Comm) (07.10.24) The Claimant purchased three copper consignments carried by Maersk from Dubai in containers under clean, straight-consigned bills of lading (B/Ls).Upon arrival in Piraeus, the containers were found to contain concrete blocks, weighing less than 50% of the expected amount and of no value. With the shippers having vanished, the Claimants contended that Maersk should have suspected an issue and claused the B/Ls. However, the Court ruled that Maersk had no reasonable means to verify the contents, absolving it of liability under Hague Rules Art. III r.3(c) and for negligent misstatement (of unawareness). No special duty of care applied (which might arise under a straight-consigned bill), as the carrier had no reason to suspect fraud. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/christostheo-v-aliki monthly 0.5 2024-10-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/b2e48545-71e3-4dae-8839-bb3f3b8bda19/ship-tracking-at-sea-1024x576.jpg Case Summaries - The Owners of the “Christos Theo” v The Owners of the “Aliki” [2024] EWHC (Admlty) (06 June 2024) Claimant “Christos Theo” claimed for damage sustained in agrounding following a ‘near miss’ with Defendant “Aliki”. Followingexchange of pleadings in which “Aliki” alleged and, in the Court’s view,demonstrated, a prima facie case that the “Christos Theo” main enginemalfunctioned, preventing it from being put astern, the Defendant applied forspecific disclosure of material capturing the incident and also as to priorproblems/ failings with the main engine. The Court found the Claimants’assertion that searches revealed no such material “defies belief” andexplanations were demonstrably wrong or incomplete. An Order was made forsearches by the Claimant for numerous items of disclosure, supported ifnecessary by verification statement. The Court directed that the Claimant payall costs of the application, ordering an interim payment of GBP70,000. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/yangtze-v-tpt monthly 0.5 2024-09-27 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/b2e48545-71e3-4dae-8839-bb3f3b8bda19/ship-tracking-at-sea-1024x576.jpg Case Summaries - Yangtze Navigation (Asia) Co Ltd &amp; Anor v TPT Shipping Ltd &amp; Ors [2024] EWHC 2371 (Comm) (18 Sept 2024) Owners delivered cargoes without production of B/Ls against D1’s (charterers’) LOIs (in Club-recommended form, with an exclusive English jurisdiction clause). D1 became insolvent and Owners’ claims for indemnification under the LOIs were directed to D2 (B/L shippers) and Ds 3-5 (other “Exporters”). Setting aside service of the Claim, the Court ruled that D2 was not D1’s undisclosed principal, nor had D2 authorised issue of LOIs on behalf of Ds 3-5, thus there was no English Jurisdiction clause between Owners and anyone other than insolvent D1. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/londonarbitration-11/24 monthly 0.5 2024-09-20 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/76290425-b3e5-4c8a-af91-430f1a486ab3/aerial-view-port-of-santos-sao-paulo.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 11/24 On a voyage charter on an ANVOY (amended Synacomex 90) form for the carriage of wheat from Russia to Brazil, charterers denied liability for demurrage and filed a counterclaim for despatch. The dispute arose due to delays at the loading port, where a phytosanitary certificate was delayed due to weather and document issues. Owners claimed that charterers had a 3-hour grace period to provide the documents once loading was completed on Saturday 29th October 2022, after which time counted. The charterers argued that laytime could not begin until 08:00 on October 31st as weekends were excluded and the 3 hours’ grace could only start after the bills of lading were signed. The Tribunal ruled for the owners, confirming that time lost after loading completion counted as if it were laytime, regardless of weekends, awarding the owners their full claim for demurrage plus interest and costs. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/augustaenergy-v-topoil monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/684c3c46-418a-43ca-abb2-c78d7946a21c/1e2b2ed19790709bf9f84a31fdca102a.jpeg Case Summaries - Augusta Energy SA v Top Oil and Gas Development Company Ltd [2024] EWHC 2285 (Comm) (6 September 2024) In a CIF sale contract governed by English law, Augusta (Claimant) sold 10,000mt of AGO to Top Oil, with Cast Oil (Joint Defendants) facilitating the transaction. Cast Oil, operating under a Nigerian law-governed MOU, used Top Oil’s LOC, assuming risks while Top Oil remained the buyer. Top Oil later alleged non-delivery due to Cast Oil’s fraud and claimed Augusta used forged documents to draw payment under the LOC, threatening legal action in Nigeria. The Judge ruled Cast Oil acted as Top Oil’s agent, binding Top Oil to the English jurisdiction clause, and their failure to file a timely defence led to submission to the English court’s jurisdiction. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/ksyjuice-v-citrosuco monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/f2dfbf0c-96c2-4d0c-89ba-185059cacde4/pexels-julieaagaard-2294477.jpg Case Summaries - KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2024] EWHC 2098 (Comm) (09 August 2024) The Claimant as seller of a quantity of orange pulp ‘wash’ sought payment of the contract price and damages for the Defendant buyer’s refusal to take delivery. However, although the contract referred to a quantity of 3,600mt/1200mt per year over a 3-year period, a contract price was only specified for the first 400mt. The Court found that there was no more than an unenforceable ‘agreement to agree’ as regards the remaining quantity/price and that the buyer was entitled to refuse delivery of, and payment for, the first year’s remaining 800mt. For the same reason, the Claimant seller (having terminated the contract) was not entitled to damages for a repudiatory breach by the buyer. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/londonarbitration-10/24 monthly 0.5 2024-08-27 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 10/24 LMLN 1166 Following an initial award of unpaid hire to Owners, the Tribunal ordered Charterers to secure, in the sum of GBP 270,000, Owners’ costs of defending counterclaims, by means of 1st class bank guarantee issued in England. Following requests for variation, the sum was ordered to be deposited with Owners’ solicitors, to be held on escrow terms. Charterers’ solicitors were thereupon dis-instructed, and following a peremptory order served at Charterers’ registered office (and other addresses) remained unsatisfied, the Tribunal, pursuant to s.41(6) of the Act, dismissed Charterers’ counterclaims, directing that Charterers bear their own costs relating to them. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/orionshippingandtrading-v-greatasiamaritime monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/0001000b-3156-434b-99b7-cbcde582d2ba/14042014085201_Img_1_DCI+April+2014_Page_019_Image_0001.jpg Case Summaries - Orion Shipping and Trading Ltd v Great Asia Maritime Ltd [2024] EWHC 2075 (Comm) (9 August 2024) (Dias DBE J) Sellers of a Cape-size bulk carrier failed to serve timely NOR (not having made reasonable arrangements to disembark crew). Buyers lawfully cancelled. Based on Clause 14 of the NSF 2012 form MOA, providing “due compensation” for loss and expense if the failure is due to “proven negligence”, the Tribunal awarded loss of bargain damages to Buyers. On appeal, the Court ruled that in the absence (as here) of a repudiatory breach, no such damages are recoverable. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sflace2co-v-dcwmanagement monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/4b20f257-a6c0-4403-8941-f8a6a5b486bd/9309162.jpeg Case Summaries - SFL Ace 2 Company Inc v DCW Management Ltd [2024] EWHC 1877 (Comm) (22 July 2024)- (Hancock KC) By exchange of emails, a 20–24-month charter of the Vessel “Green Ace” was agreed between the Claimant Owners and Charterers “to be guaranteed by [Charterers’ parent, the Defendants, AGML]”. No formal C/P or Guarantee was drawn up. 2 days after delivery, Charterers advised “…unable to accept…. vessel on…current charter terms”, which Owners treated (and the Court confirmed) as repudiatory, seeking damages from AGML. Rejecting AGML’s contentions, the Court found that the words used were sufficient to create an immediate-effect Guarantee on AGML’s part; the exchange of fixture emails by the parties’ authorised representatives satisfied the “writing” and “signed” requirement of the Statute of Frauds; and any mistake on Charterers’ part as to the Guarantee’s binding nature was not shared by Owners and provided no grounds for recission of the Guarantee. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/msamlinmarine-v-kingtraderltd monthly 0.5 2024-11-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/da6dab71-9a22-45fa-b5cb-dc88b57b0731/Solomon-Trader-e1552577105378.jpg Case Summaries - MS Amlin Marine NV v King Trader Ltd &amp; Ors [2024] EWHC 1813 (Comm) Following the grounding of “Solomon Trader”, her time-charterers accrued liabilities of some USD47m towards owning interests. Amlin (charterers’ liability insurers), sought to rely on a “pay as may be paid” proviso in the policy to exclude liability to owning interests for liabilities the now-insolvent insured had failed to meet. Upholding the proviso, the Court ruled that, despite its subsidiary nature, it was not inconsistent with the policy’s main purpose, was not transformative of the insurance contract and was no different in essence from equivalent provisos in P&I and Hull policies. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/njordpartners-v-astirmaritime monthly 0.5 2024-08-21 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - Njord Partners Sma-Seal LP &amp; Ors v Astir Maritime Ltd &amp; Ors [2024] EWHC 1682 (Comm) (03 July 2024) - (Salter KC) The Claimant provided a financial facility of USD45m to D1 to support its ship-recycling business, secured by a personal guarantee of D2, who, during negotiations leading to the facility, presented a “Statement of Net Worth” of USD46m. D3 (CFO of D1) issued the required “Approved Borrower Statement”, asserting transactional compliance. Repayments were not made and D2 provided a misleading “Statement of Delays”. The Court found all 3 Statements false and fraudulent, meant to deceive the Claimant, who relied on them. D2 and D3 were held liable for the torts of deceit and accessory liability respectively and Defendants collectively for unlawful means conspiracy, with damages to be assessed. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/kingcrude-v-rigdeburynovember monthly 0.5 2024-07-08 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - King Crude Carriers SA &amp; Ors v Ridgebury November LLC &amp; Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 719 (27 June 2024)- (Popplewell LJ, Nugee LJ, Folk LJ) Under MOAs for the sale of tankers, Buyers failed to place 10% deposits in escrow as required; Sellers terminated the MOAs. Buyers contended that Sellers’ claims were restricted to prove damages (rather than the fixed deposits), relying on a long-standing principle that a condition precedent (here lodging deposits), if unfulfilled, is dispensed with in calculating damages. Allowing Sellers’ appeal, the CA ruled that the principle was one of construction not law and was unavailable to a party failing, in breach, to fulfil the condition precedent. Buyers could not benefit from their own wrong by thwarting the accrual of the deposits. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/barclays-v-sovcombank monthly 0.5 2024-07-08 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - Barclays Bank PLC v PJSC Sovcombank &amp; Anor [2024] EWHC 1338 (Comm) (24 May 2024)-(Foxton J) Sovcombank sought damages in the Russian courts after UK Sanctions prevented Barclays making payments under a financial facility. Supporting the facility's English exclusive jurisdiction clause, the Court granted Barclays not only an anti- suit injunction against Sovcombank but also a rare anti-enforcement injunction to further guard against a Russian judgment. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/greaklakes-v-ravbahamas monthly 0.5 2024-07-08 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) plc (as Subrogee of Modrono's Bimini Place Ltd) v RAV Bahamas Ltd (Bahamas) [2024] UKPC 11 (21 May 2024)- (Briggs LJ, Hamblen LJ, Leggatt LJ, Burrows LJ, Stephens LJ) Following theft of a yacht from a Bahamian marina, her owners/ insurers claimed against the marina in tort (negligence) and under the dock lease agreement. Upholding the Bahamian CA, the PC agreed that the marina had not assumed a responsibility to use reasonable care to guard against theft of the yacht (especially where, as here, the owner retained the keys). Similarly, no contractual duty to prevent the theft arose under the lease, such responsibility lying with the yacht owners. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/rhine-v-vitol monthly 0.5 2024-07-08 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - Rhine Shipping DMCC v Vitol SA [2024] EWCA Civ 580 (23 May 2024)- (Underhill LJ, Asplin LJ, Popplewell LJ) Under specific C/P provisions, Charterers, Vitol succeeded against owners, Rhine, in respect of a 6-day delay in reaching a load port, requiring Vitol to pay a higher price to its seller (derived from Platts on the eventual, rather than expected B/L date). Before the C.A., Rhine re-cast its argument that Vitol’s internal hedging should have been taken into account. The C.A. disallowed the new basis and confirmed that Vitol’s internal hedging was unrelated and did not serve to reduce the damages payable by Rhine. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/rti-v-mur monthly 0.5 2024-07-08 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV [2024] UKSC 18-15 May 2024(Hodge LJ, Lloyd-Jones LJ, Humblen LJ, Burrows LJ, Richards LJ) A COA between MUR as owners and RTI provided for monthly shipments of bauxite, and payments in USD. A Force Majeure Clause allowed suspension of performance in case of defined events which “cannot be overcome by reasonable endeavors from the Party affected”. When RTI’s parent became US-sanctioned, MUR relied on the Clause, contending it could not receive payments. RTI challenged, based on its offer to pay in EUR. The SC agreed with the High Court ruling that “reasonable endeavours” could not encompass non-contractual performance (i.e. EUR instead of USD). MUR was entitled to rely on the Clause. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sharpcorp-v-viterra monthly 0.5 2024-07-08 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - Sharp Corp Ltd v Viterra BV [2024] UKSC 14 In 2017 Viterra sold peas and lentils to Sharp, on C&FFO Mundra (and Gafta 24) terms; payment cash against documents, with Viterra’s right to re-sell in the event of default. The goods arrived from Vancouver in June 2017 but Sharp failed to pay. By the time Viterra re-gained possession of the warehoused goods (in Feb 2018) to re-sell, the Mundra prices had risen sharply (due to new local import tariffs). The GAFTA board based Viterra’s damages (some USD5m) on the high comparator of the Feb 2018 C&FFO Mundra price. The matter eventually reached the SC which found that GAFTA erred in so doing and the compensatory principle of damages and the doctrine of mitigation both required that the comparator should be the local ex-warehouse price and not the international import price; in other words, Viterra should not have the benefit of the price-hike. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/big-kahuna monthly 0.5 2024-07-08 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - Zurich Insurance Company Ltd (t/a Navigators And General) &amp; Ors v Halcyon Yacht Charter LLP Re: "Big Kahuna" [2024] EWHC 937 (Admlty) (25 April 2024) Following a fire on m/y "Big Kahuna" spreading to other vessels in a Corfu marina and sinking some, including the 1929 wooden ketch "Halcyon”, the English insurers and Owners of the former commenced Limitation proceedings in the English Court. "Halcyon" subsequently sought damages in the Greek Courts (where Limitation was 3x higher) and applied to stay the English action. Declining, the Court ruled that there was no question of the (English interests) "Big Kahuna" 'forum shopping' and no reason why Limitation and underlying claim could not be tried in separate jurisdictions. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/steamship-v-trico monthly 0.5 2024-07-08 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v Trico Maritime (Pvt) Ltd &amp; Ors [2024] EWHC 884 (Comm)-23 April 2024-(Bright J) Following the sinking of the “X-Press Pearl” and the issue of English Limitation proceedings, the Defendant cargo claimants commenced proceedings in Sri Lanka, directly against the Vessel’s Club “as insurer”. The Club commenced London Arbitration (the forum specified by its Rules) against cargo claimants, seeking a declaration of non-liability; it also sought an anti-suit injunction. The Court ascertained that the claims were asserted under the insurance contract (rather than under any independent rights) so that the Rules, including “pay to be paid” applied, and granted the Club the injunction sought. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/irish-high-court monthly 0.5 2024-04-18 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - “Hua Sheng Hai” icw “Kirrixki” [2024] IEHC 182 – 26 March 2024 (Mr Justice Denis McDonald) Following a collision off Ireland between the laden, 620,000 GRT bulk carrier “Hua Sheng Hai” and the 320 GRT fishing vessel “Kirrixki”, the Irish Court found that “Kirrixki” failed to keep a (or any) look out; she was not (as claimed) lowering nets but slow-steaming to new waters, then suddenly changed course and accelerated just prior to the collision. She was not the stand-on vessel, but in any event was in breach of Colregs for not holding her course and speed, and was the major cause of the collision. “Hua Sheng Hai” whilst not required to change course, nevertheless failed to take timely action to avoid unexpected and sudden danger. Liability was set at 85% “Kirrixki” 15% “Hua Sheng Hai”. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/eurobank-v-momentum monthly 0.5 2024-04-18 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - Eurobank SA v Momentum Maritime SA &amp; Ors [2024] EWHC 210 (Comm)-29 January 2024-(Pelling KC J) The Borrowers defaulted under a ship finance loan. Two vessels subject to the loan were arrested by other creditors and judicially sold by a port authority. Although joining in the arrests, the Claimant Lenders were initially unaware of the judicial sale of the vessels (for scrap) and received no proceeds. Granting the Lenders’ summary judgment application for the full outstanding loan amounts, the Court ruled that the Lenders were not in breach of their equitable duties: they had merely joined in arrest of the vessels and had done so in good faith; they had never taken possession of them, nor arranged their sale, indeed had no knowledge or control of the sale effected. The Lenders could not be expected to pay off all other creditors in order to move the Vessel elsewhere where better prices might be obtained, nor to seek recovery from the port authority. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/smit-salvage monthly 0.5 2024-04-18 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - SMIT Salvage BV &amp; Ors v Luster Maritime SA &amp; Anor (MV Ever Given - Salvage Claim) [2024] EWCA Civ 260-19 March 2024- (King LJ DBE, Males LJ, Popplewell LJ) The CA dismissed the defendant Owners’ challenge to the Admiralty Court’s ruling that the claimant Salvors were entitled to remuneration pursuant to the Salvage Convention or common law (i.e. limited only by Vessel salved value). Upholding the findings of the Court below, the CA agreed that Owners had failed to discharge their burden of demonstrating, by way of the exchanges with Salvors, an unequivocal intention to enter a binding, fixed remuneration agreement instead. Nor could it be said, in the circumstances, that when urgent negotiations subsided, this evidenced that both parties considered a binding agreement concluded. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/alta-tt4wg monthly 0.5 2024-04-18 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - Delos Shipholding SA &amp; Ors v Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty SE &amp; Ors [2024] EWHC 719-25 March 2024 (Dias DBE J) The Vessel “Win Win” intending to anchor at EOPL Singapore in February 2019, was within Indonesian territorial waters and was arrested by their Navy (shortly after an anchoring rule change). The Vessel was detained for 18 months and the Master imprisoned. The Defendant war risk insurers contested liability under the Policy, arguing that (i) insured Owners knew/ should have known of the risk, thus the loss was voluntary (ii) the arrest was akin to a customs/ quarantine one and excluded by the Policy (iii) Owners failed in their ‘sue and labour’ duty, including engaging in futile negotiations with Indonesia, thus causing the loss. Each argument failed as did the Defendants’ attempt to avoid the policy for non-disclosure of (unrelated) Greek criminal charges against Owners’ director, held to have had no relevance or bearing on acceptance of the risk. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/alta monthly 0.5 2024-04-18 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - Alta Trading UK Ltd &amp; Ors v Bosworth &amp; Ors (PTR Ruling Re Disclosure) [2024] EWHC 574 – 12 March 2024 (Baker J) In relation to issues over whether certain payments had been made, the Claimants sought an order that a collection of some 6,000 of the Defendants’ documents, already manually searched, should now be subjected to “TAR” (technology-assisted review) to ascertain further discloseability. The Judge ruled that, bearing in mind limitations to the TAR system, an order was not justified in relation to documents already subjected to a disclosure exercise, adding that the situation might be different had a new source of documentation been identified. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/londonarbitration4/24 monthly 0.5 2024-04-18 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 4/24 Disputes arose under a NYPE T/C providing for “BOR [bunkers on redelivery] to be same as actually on board on delivery”. Finding that the required LSFO was unavailable at the redelivery port, Charterers proposed to replenish with LSMGO instead, which Owners declined quoting technical concerns. The Tribunal upheld Owners’ right to damages, Charterers bearing the risk of LSFO unavailability at the final discharge port. Nor did Owners’ duty to mitigate extend to accepting the non-contractual performance tendered. Damages were based on the shortfall amount, at LSFO prices encountered on the next employment, plus the additional cost of LSMGO necessarily consumed in reaching it. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/denvermaritime-v-belpareil monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - Denver Maritime Ltd v Belpareil AS [2024] EWHC 362 – 26 February 2024 (Baker J) The Court found that the collision between MV BELPAREIL (B) and MV KIRAN AUSTRALIA (K) was a result of B dropping anchor and K’s response manoeuvres. Liability was assessed 70% B / 30% K. The Court found that B could not rebut the presumption that dragging anchor is prima facie evidence of negligence and failed to inform K in a timely manner, to call earlier for tug assistance and to drop a second anchor. Such various faults were considered effective causes but despite the perilous situation being meanly of B’s making, K contributed by not fulfilling the expectation of competent seamanship to avoid a collision: she should not have let herself fall astern and starboard and should instead have increased engine speed. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/h1andanor monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - H1 &amp; Anor v W &amp; Ors [2024] EWHC 382 – 22 February 2024 (Calver J) In the context of an arbitration relating a claim under a film-production policy, the insurer applied to Court for the removal of the sole arbitrator on the ground of apparent bias due to his knowledge of and attitude towards the insured's factual and expert witnesses and some remarks that he did not intend hear the insured’s expert witnesses because he knew them “all personally extremely well” as "exceptional people in their fields". The judge found no actual or apparent bias based purely on his past industry relationship with the witnesses. Nevertheless, the arbitrator was removed because the suggestion that it was unnecessary to cross-examine the insured’s expert witnesses was plainly not an expression of a balanced and impartial view as it gave rise to an apprehension that he had pre-determined favourable views, thereby pre-judging the merits of the dispute. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/londonarbitration1/24 monthly 0.5 2024-03-12 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 1/24 A Voyage C/P provided that loading laytime was to cease from 1700 hours before until 0800 after a “public holiday”. Owners disputed the interruption of laytime at Paranagua for the “Corpus Christi” holiday on the grounds that it did not appear in the BIMCO calendar. The Tribunal found that the BIMCO calendar was not definitive on the point and accepted instead Charterers’ evidence (from the Brazilian Embassy in London website) that Corpus Christi was one of the public holidays observed throughout Brazil. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/trafigura monthly 0.5 2024-02-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6535b18d-eb0e-439c-91e3-883a80429a17/jpg.jpg Case Summaries - Southeaster Maritime Ltd v Trafigura Maritime Logistics Pte Ltd MV "Aquafreedom" [2024] EWHC 255 – 8 February 2024 (Jacobs J) The parties conducted negotiations for a 4 year T/C, culminating in a Recap, containing ‘subs’ and references to further terms to be agreed; further terms were advanced by Trafigura, commented on by Owners (“Owners’ last”) and countered by Trafigura. Following Owners’ silence and Trafigura’s chasers, the latter purported to accept “Owners’ last” and advised that they lifted all ‘subs’ and were fully fixed. Granting summary judgment to Owners, the Court held: the ‘subs’ and further terms TBA precluded the Recap being a concluded contract; “Owners’ last” was not capable of acceptance (and had been rejected) and Trafigura’s subsequent conduct was of no contractual effect. There was no concluded C/P. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-2-24-rkg8y monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/3df96181-39c3-4087-8c1e-b09e6f3443fb/pexels-ingo-joseph-1682794+%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - Marchand Navigation Co v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd and Another [2023] SGHC 339 – 29 November 2023 (Kwek Mean Luck J) M as disponent owner, chartered the Vessel to S, under an NYPE subject to English law and London Arbitration. S provided bunkers to the Vessel, but failed to pay the supplier who was ultimately paid by M, to avoid Vessel arrest. S had sub-chartered to O (a Singaporean company), who had incurred demurrage. To recoup its bunker payment, M served on O a notice of its NYPE Cl.18 lien “on sub-freights… demurrages… for any amounts due under this Charter”. S asserted that no amounts were due to M under the T/C. The Singapore Court upheld M’s lien, ruling that third party demurrage fell within its ambit and the bunker payment constituted an amount “due under this Charter”; whilst the dispute between M and S was referrable to London Arbitration, that did not preclude M exercising its lien against O and enforcing it in the Singapore Court. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-2-24 monthly 0.5 2024-02-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/34cc7e97-482e-4583-930e-52947c36a70c/pexels-martin-magnemyr-5101563-2.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 2/24 In a T/C dispute involving a laden passage from Venezuela to Italy, Charterers alleged ‘unreported’ voyages near the load port and Gibraltar, misrepresentations (BOD and consumption) and underperformance, and deducted from hire. The Tribunal found disclosure failings: Owners’ logs were variously illegible or incomplete, the oil record book was withheld; Charterers did not volunteer their contemporaneous weather routing report, relying instead on a reconstruction by their expert. Nevertheless, the Tribunal found that Master’s noon reports were not ‘wildly’ inaccurate, and neither the contemporaneous evidence nor Charterers’ expert evidence supported any of their allegations. Owners’ hire claim succeeded, and Charterers’ cross claim failed, each in full. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/herculito monthly 0.5 2024-02-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/f2d23fb7-b7ad-471d-aded-01f9e638da1a/pexels-jess-loiterton-4785054-2.jpg Case Summaries - Herculito Maritime Ltd &amp; Ors v Gunvor International BV &amp; Ors [2024] UKSC 2 (17 January 2024) Following seizure of the “Polar” by Somali pirates, Owners paid a USD7m ransom, which they sought to recover from Cargo by way of GA contribution. Cargo argued that the C/P War Risk scheme and GoA clause, created an insurance ‘fund’ to be used by Owners in the event of piracy, precluding Owners from seeking reimbursement from Charterers (save as to premia), and that the same scheme was incorporated into the B/L, relieving Cargo from contribution obligations. The SC (upholding Courts below) ruled that the effect of incorporation was that Cargo had no responsibility for premia and were not relieved of the obligation to contribute. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/ukpandiclubnvandanor-v-republicabolivarianadevenezuela monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/5e99f678-b62a-4dd0-b4e2-617c2f7f5b65/pexels-fuka-jaz-12318756+%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - UK P&amp;I Club NV &amp; Anor v Republica Bolivariana De Venezuela [2023] EWCA Civ 1497 – 20 December 2023 (Sir Geoffrey Vos, Popplewell LJ, Phillips LJ) The State of Venezuela started proceedings in Curacao and Venezuela against the owners and insurers of a cruise liner which collided with a Venezuelan navy vessel in breach of the London arbitration clauses in the insurance contract. The insurers were granted an interim anti-suit injunction by the High Court but Venezuela objected enforcement immunity. The CA upheld the first instance judgment that refused to grant the insurers a permanent anti-suit injunction because (i) relief cannot be given against a State by way of injunction pursuant to sec. 13(2)(a) of the SIA 1978 and (ii) such rule pursues legitimate domestic objectives by proportionate means, and does not impair the essence of Article 6(1) of the ECHR protecting the universal right to a fair and public hearing. The limitation to the ECHR right was justified by the UK’s domestic policy consistent with international sensitivity and comity. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-1/24 monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/edc082a9-f02b-40d1-9ede-538a6146edac/pexels-nehemias-gomez-fotografia-16554127-2.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 1/24 A voyage C/P provided for discharge at 1 / 2 safe ports China, to be nominated within a certain time. Freight varied according to ports and number and was deemed earned on shipment. Charterers timeously nominated 2 ports, the 2nd attracting additional freight. Later, they nominated a different, sole port. Owners complied, under protest and on terms that the additional freight be placed in escrow. Charterers challenged the additional freight, given their replacement nomination. The Tribunal held that the first nominations were treated as if written into the C/P from the outset. Charterers’ arguments that variation, waiver or estoppel applied were all defeated by Owners’ protest and reservation recorded in the escrow. Nor could it be said that Owners were unjustly enriched by not performing the additional freight voyage, as freight had been earned on shipment. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/premier-oil-v-shell monthly 0.5 2024-01-05 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/ee1c1224-80ed-4e0b-8f9d-d7c7f3214e46/Kroonborg_Shell_GTL_fuel.jpg Case Summaries - Premier Oil UK Ltd v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Ltd [2023] EWHC 3269 – 20 December 2023 (Nigel Cooper KC) Two crude oil sale contracts provided for pricing to be calculated by reference to particular Platts indices, and in the event of material change to Platts methodology, for a referee to determine a new source. Platts changed their methodology, the parties agreed on a referee, but not his terms of reference. Shell raised a number of issues as to the nature and extent of his task, arguably limiting it. Premier sought declaratory relief from the Court, arguing that the referee’s task was clear from the contracts and he should be allowed to get on with it. Premier succeeded, the Court ruling that it was inappropriate to decide the scope of the referee’s task before his determination, as there were no strong grounds pointing to a likelihood of the expert going wrong. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-18/23 monthly 0.5 2024-01-05 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/8859b1b0-5a9e-429f-bd2c-add1556011c0/pexels-tom-fisk-3840441+%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 18/23 Charterers under an NYPE T/C, challenged the delivery time specified by Owners, stating that the AIS had been turned off some 442 nm away and the Vessel could not have covered that distance in the intervening period. Owners’ argument that the Vessel speeded up was rejected as the logs produced in support were unconvincing (all in the same hand, allegedly produced from memory without aid of rough logs). Charterers failed however on their performance claim by not meeting a provision requiring their evaluation to be submitted latest 15 days after the passage in question. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/ams-ameropa-marketing-sales-ag-v-ocean-unity-navigation-inc monthly 0.5 2024-01-05 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/47f9cf0a-cb1e-41f2-b776-da45befd5e22/pexels-polina-tankilevitch-3735181+%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - AMS Ameropa Marketing Sales AG &amp; Anor v Ocean Unity Navigation Inc [2023] EWHC 3264 – 19 December 2023 (Ms Clare Ambrose) The Claimants sold 50,000mt soybeans on CIF terms, carried pursuant to a B/L on the Defendants’ Vessel. The receivers rejected a quantity (comprising sound and allegedly damaged cargo) and later effected a salvage sale of the damaged cargo. The Claimants sought damages being the difference between the CIF price of the rejected quantity and that achieved on the salvage sale, plus inspection, survey, and cargo handling expenses. The Defendants admitted liability but contended that a much lesser quantity than alleged was affected, and that the Claimants failed properly to segregate and to obtain sufficient bids on the salvage sale. The Court, whilst accepting the Defendants’ evidence on damage extent, rejected the arguments on mitigation, emphasising the high evidential burden of showing unreasonable conduct by a claimant. It also allowed the CIF price as the comparator but disallowed the additional expenses. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/tuiuk-v-griffiths monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/037d48bf-fe47-4db9-bd3f-37a97ecb1074/BY+%281%29.jpg Case Summaries - TUI UK Ltd v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48 – 29 November 2023 (Reed LJ, Hodge LJ, Kitchin LJ, Sales LJ, Lloyd-Jones LJ) The Claimant sued the Defendant tour operator alleging that he fell ill due to contaminated food. He relied on expert evidence which the Defendant did not contest, failing to produce its own expert evidence or to cross examine the Claimant’s expert. The trial judge dismissed the claim on the basis of deficiencies in the expert’s report raised by the Defendant. The High Court overturned this decision; the CA restored it, finding that a court was entitled to rely on its own assessment that a report was unsatisfactory even if uncontroverted; the Supreme Court overturned the CA, ruling that the trial judge’s decision to reject expert evidence which had neither been contested nor subjected to cross-examination rendered the trial unfair. There were limited exceptions, though – e.g. where expert evidence is manifestly incredible or contain an obvious absurdity or mistake on the face of a report. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-16/23 monthly 0.5 2023-12-08 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/57c44149-ed9a-4e15-951e-3f096c0eec5e/Screenshot+2023-12-07+101729.png Case Summaries - London Arbitration 16/23 A T/C provided that Charterers were to redeliver the Vessel with “about” the same quantities of bunkers as on delivery and “should…difference….exceed 5%, Charterers shall compensate Owners losses …”.Charterers redelivered with some 13% less FO and 50% less MGO than on delivery. The Owners claimed as damages the market rates for the entire shortfalls, contending that the 5% allowance was not applicable if exceeded. The Tribunal held that within 5% gave rise to no breach and only awarded damages for the net shortfalls. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/mercuria-energy-trading-v-raphael-cotoner-investments monthly 0.5 2023-12-08 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/5618dab6-19e2-419a-acbf-cce37eab0122/pexels-mohammad-danish-891059.jpg Case Summaries - Mercuria Energy Trading PTE v Raphael Cotoner Investments Ltd (m/t Afra Oak) [2023] EWHC 2978 – 23 November 2023 (Tearing J) Charterers under an Exxonvoy ordered the Vessel to wait at Singapore EOPL. The Master anchored in Indonesian waters, where the Vessel was arrested by the Navy along with the Master and detained for 8 months. The Tribunal rejected both Owners’ and Charterers’ claims, based respectively on ‘safety’ and breach of Exxonvoy Cl.2 (‘Compliance’). Charterers appealed the latter but in view of the Tribunal’s finding that error in navigation caused the Master to anchor where he did, the Court upheld their ruling that Owners were entitled to rely on Art. IV rule 2(a) of the Hague Rules. Even if such defence was an ‘anachronism’ (as Charterers argued) the parties had nonetheless agreed to its application by US COGSA. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/litasco-v-dermondoil-and-gasafrica monthly 0.5 2023-12-08 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/5618dab6-19e2-419a-acbf-cce37eab0122/pexels-mohammad-danish-891059.jpg Case Summaries - Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA &amp; Anor (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 2866 - 15 November 2023 (Foxton J) The Court granted Summary Judgment to Litasco (unpaid Sellers of crude oil to the Defendants) in a Є45m claim, pursuant to a debt re-scheduling Agreement. The Court dismissed the Defendant’s various arguments including those under the UK 2019 Russia Sanctions Regulations, and illegality. The Regulations did not apply to the transaction (involving Swiss/Senegalese entities and West African countries) or to any of the ‘persons’ involved (neither Swiss Litasco, nor its Russian parent, Lukoil, was Sanctioned, nor was any individual with a controlling stake; the Defendants failed to prove that President Putin had de facto control of the Claimants; paying the scheduled debt would not make funds available to a Russian person in connection with the export of energy-related goods. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/star-axe-v-royal-and-sun-alliance-luxembourg-sa monthly 0.5 2023-11-20 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/5618dab6-19e2-419a-acbf-cce37eab0122/pexels-mohammad-danish-891059.jpg Case Summaries - Star Axe I LLC v Royal and Sun Alliance Luxembourg SA - Belgian Branch &amp; Ors [2023] EWHC 2784 – 10 November 2023 (Butcher J) The Claimant carrier issued 7 ‘Congenbill 1994’ B/Ls in 2021. GA was declared on the voyage and the Defendant cargo insurers issued Average Guarantees. The carrier sought a declaratory judgment that the B/Ls provision that GA “….shall be adjusted….according to the York-Antwerp Rules 1994 or any subsequent modification thereof…” applied the 1994 YAR to the exclusion of the 2004 and 2016 versions, as these were each more than “modification”. The Court ruled that both were properly considered “modifications” and that here the 2016 YAR applied. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-15/23 monthly 0.5 2023-11-20 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/37a1e7b7-bb20-4f65-b21f-a745bb53dc18/pexels-pixabay-139393.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 15/23 Arbitrators rejected Time Charterers’ Weather Routing Company (WRC) performance analysis as it departed from the C/P parameters including as to swell and significant wave height (attributing 2m to DSS3) and failed to recognise routine navigational alterations, casting doubt on reliability generally. However, they found Owners in breach due to Vessel’s hull and propeller fouling, affecting performance and entitling Charterers to deduct for damages (albeit in a lesser amount than pursuant to their WRC analysis). https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/23-11-01 monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/68392166-39ba-4754-9367-2a2990e8379a/pexels-pavel-danilyuk-8112203.jpg Case Summaries - Hulley Enterprises Ltd &amp; Ors v The Russian Federation [2023] EWHC 2704 – 1 November 2023 (Cockerill J) The claimant former shareholders of Yukos obtained – and sought to enforce – Arbitration Awards determining that the Tribunal had jurisdiction and that RF was in breach and liable to pay them some USD50bn in damages. RF challenged both the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the English Court’s jurisdiction to enforce on the basis of state immunity. In fact, RF alleged that the claimants could not invoke the provision containing RF’s agreement to arbitration as they did not fit in the definition of "investors" as required. The same challenges were brought before Dutch Courts but they were rejected. The Commercial Court held that the Dutch judgments created issue-estoppel precluding RF from re-opening jurisdiction: RF’s challenges already had a determination and it could not seek another one before a different court. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/23-10-25 monthly 0.5 2023-11-10 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/81c2aaf2-3fc2-4a87-855f-ef870b436342/Screenshot+2023-11-10+112515.png Case Summaries - The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process &amp; Industrial Developments Ltd [2023] EWHC 2638 – 23 October 2023 (Knowles J CBE) Disputes arose under a substantial gas supply contract between the claimant State and the defendant BVI corporation. Following ICC arbitration in London, the defendant was awarded USD6.6bn in damages. Nigeria’s appeal under s.68(2)(g) of the Arbitration Act (serious irregularity – award obtained by fraud or in a manner contrary to public policy) succeeded. The Court found that the defendant had provided false evidence to the Tribunal, bribed a Nigerian official to conceal significant facts and had improperly obtained Nigeria’s privileged documents. But for this conduct the Tribunal would have reached a different conclusion. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/23-10-19 monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/dcbfdb93-97ed-4b60-9cf9-b494f8c85cab/Screenshot+2023-10-19+111306.png Case Summaries - London Arbitration 14/23 Under a T/C, delays in berthing followed the Vessel’s grounding at her Mississippi River anchorage. With no berthing prospects in sight, and fearing another grounding, (but against advice of the local Pilots association), the Master shifted the Vessel to a 2nd anchorage where, as warned against, the Vessel swung 360◦ requiring her anchors to be disentangled with tug and pilot assistance. The Tribunal found (i) that although the first anchorage was safe for the Vessel, Charterers were nonetheless in breach of their ‘always afloat’ warranty and (ii) the Master’s choice was not unreasonable but the 2nd anchorage was unsafe, placing Charterers in breach of their warranty. Owners’ claims for the costs of re-floating, shifting, re-anchoring and disentangling the anchors succeeded, as did their claim for withheld hire during the delayed berthing (even that part of the delay caused by the Master’s late action to disentangle anchors). https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/23-10-11 monthly 0.5 2023-11-10 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/ccc5c426-3426-4ba6-9807-c4474c727435/pexels-quang-nguyen-vinh-2144905.jpg Case Summaries - JOL &amp; Anor v JPM [2023] EWHC 2486 – 9 October 2023 (Foxton J) Disputes arose under 2 bareboat charters over Owners’ Termination Notices (following shareholding changes in sub-charterers). After starting arbitration, Owners sought injunctive relief from the Court under s.44(3) of the Arbitration Act (orders to preserve evidence or assets in urgent cases) requiring the immediate redelivery of the Vessels, as during the proceedings the Vessels would be exposed to risks and loss of Owners’ opportunity. The Court declined the injunction because Owners failed to prove urgency and further, the injunction, in bringing about redelivery, would thwart the arbitrators’ role in deciding validity of the Notices. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/gvr-arbitration monthly 0.5 2023-10-05 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/70e37a5c-7ce8-4087-9825-d6de115b4fac/about-paris-arbitration.jpg Case Summaries - G v R (In an Arbitration Claim) [2023] EWHC 2365 – 22 September 2023 (Sir Nigel Teare) The Claimant sought an ant-suit injunction restraining Russian proceedings in favour of ICC arbitration in Paris, as specified in an arbitration clause in a bond expressed to be governed by English law. The Court declined the injunction, ruling that it had no such jurisdiction, given that the arbitration was to be in France (where substantial justice could be done). https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-7fn82-dsesm-rb72n monthly 0.5 2023-09-29 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/936010c0-17bc-4783-b70f-6708dc2503c6/Panama-Canal_July2020.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 13/23 When the Vessel’s master fell ill and subsequently died, the Panama Canal Authority cancelled the pre-booked transit and placed the Vessel “on hold” pending production of contemporaneous negative Covid-19 PCR tests of crew/officers. Under the NYPE C/P, Charterers held the vessel off-hire from arrival until transit. Rejecting the claim, the Tribunal found that the situation did not fall within Cl.15 “any other cause” (there was no “whatsoever”). Nor within various additional clauses including “Off-hire” due to “threatened detention by any authority” – there was no detention as such; nor “Certificates and Vaccinations” - relating to advance certificates rather than transitory PCR tests; nor a “Panama…Canal” clause, relating only to Vessel fittings and suitability for transit. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-7fn82-dsesm monthly 0.5 2023-09-21 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/4c6624d2-a2ce-494c-8ee4-fdaec5282284/Maersk-Line-e1611131708544-780x470.jpg Case Summaries - JB Cocoa SDN BHD and others v Maersk Line AS trading as Safmarine [2023] EWHC 2203 – 5 September 2023 (Keyser KC) Those interested in a cargo of cocoa beans claimed against the carrier in respect of damage. The Court found that the condensation damage was caused by post-discharge lack of container ventilation pending de-vanning. The contractual claim (by the B/L holder/ endorsee) failed as the B/L provided that carrier’s liability ended upon tendering the goods for delivery (here discharge) and incorporated the Hague Rules to the same effect. The negligence claim by the alleged goods owner failed as there was neither evidence as to cargo ownership at the material time, nor basis for carrier liability outside the terms of the B/L. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-7fn82 monthly 0.5 2023-09-18 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/e0e2c9da-b473-4333-aaf2-cb0f9a1920d7/esso.jpg Case Summaries - Esso Petroleum Company Ltd v Breen &amp; Anor [2023] EWHC 2013 (KB) – 31 August 2023 (Knowles J) The Court granted Esso an extended interim injunction against the Defendant and persons unknown (environmental protesters) restraining them from disrupting construction on its Southampton to London Oil Pipeline Project, on the basis of the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. It was immaterial that not all protest was aimed directly at Esso. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/2438e3c3-25a6-4463-9d1c-39085892ac78/flaminia2.png Case Summaries - MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v Stolt Tank Containers BV &amp; Ors (Re "MSC Flaminia" (No. 2)) [2023] EWCA Civ 1007 – 1 September 2023 (Males LJ, Falk LJ, Henderson LJ) In relation to the time-charterers’ liabilities arising out of the explosion on MSC Flaminia in July 2012, the CA held that a charterer who falls within the extended definition of "shipowner" in Article 1.2 of the Amended 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability cannot limit its liability to the actual owner in respect of losses suffered by the owner itself. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/a98d9e8a-5dbf-4b83-b591-8bb58a4e778b/pexels-jay-pizzle-3894060.jpg Case Summaries - Topalsson GmbH v Rolls Royce Motor Cars Limited [2023] EWHC 2092 (TCC) Waksman J The English Court had upheld Rolls Royce (“RUK”) termination of a Service Agreement with Topalsson (containing an English exclusive jurisdiction clause ‘EJC’). RUK now sought an anti-suit injunction restraining Topalsson’s subsequently commenced US proceedings against it and others. The Court found that the subject matter (essentially copyright) of the (recently amended) US Complaint did not arise under the Service Agreement and the EJC provided no basis for an anti-suit injunction either contractually or otherwise. The unamended Complaint had, however, constituted a breach of the EJC, potentially entitling RUK to damages. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 11/23 Under a T/C with maximum duration to mid-December 2019, Charterers redelivered late, in February 2020, with 165 MT HSFO (by then out-lawed by the IMO fuel regulations in force 1.1.20). Owners claimed in respect of post-redelivery time and cost of a trip to de-bunker, relying on cl. 10, which set out a sliding scale of permitted redelivery HSFO quantities to be endeavoured. The Tribunal dismissed Owners’ claims based on cl.10 (due to its non-mandatory nature) and on an implied term requiring zero ‘un-burnable’ ROB after 31.12.19 (as the situation was contemplated by neither party). However, ruling that rate differential was not the only measure of late-redelivery damages, the Tribunal held that cl.10 meant that de-bunkering was within the contemplation of the parties and resulting expenditure recoverable by Owners. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/e8912b05-0bac-49c9-8323-c4949c97dcac/barclays.jpeg Case Summaries - Philipp v Barclays Bank UK PLC [2023] UKSC 25 – 12 July 2023 (Reed LJ, Hodge LJ, Sales LJ, Hamblen LJ, Leggatt LJ)&nbsp; Mrs Philipp claimed against her bank, having fallen victim to an 'authorised push payment' ('APP') fraud, whereby she authorised payments totalling £700k to fraudsters' various international a/cs. The SC, restoring the 1st instance judgment, confirmed the bank's duty to carry out its customer's instructions with reasonable care and skill, disobeying them if reasonable grounds for believing fraudulent agency involved. Where, as here, the instructions came directly from the customer (a feature of APP fraud), the bank might have the right - but had no duty - to disobey such instructions. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889 monthly 0.5 2023-08-29 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Jaldhi Mideast DMCC v Al Ghurair Resources LLC [2023] Following an unpaid Judgment for damages for wrongful arrest of the vessel ‘Captain Silver’, the Claimants took enforcement steps, including an Asset Disclosure Order (ADO), which was disobeyed, resulting in a Contempt of Court ruling, a £100,000 fine on AGR (unpaid) and a 12-month Committal Order on its general manager, Mr AG. The latter applied to discharge the Committal Order on the grounds that whilst he was willing to comply with the ADO, he had no authority to do so because his co-signatories withheld consent. The Court declined: the Committal Order could not be discharged whilst the underlying Contempt remained and there were insufficient grounds to ‘purge’ the Contempt. Mr AG had failed to take adequate steps to obtain co-signatories’ support, and he could have at least partially complied with the ADO. Should he do so in future purging might be possible. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/londonarbitration10/2023 monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/491bdd10-b548-4349-812c-023979ced417/pexels-muhammed-emin-bozyoku%C5%9F-18148882.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 10/23 As part of a trade of shipping parcels of wheat from a Black Sea port to Turkey, Charterers engaged the subject Vessel. In repudiatory breach, Owners failed to perform the C/P. Charterers claimed (i) substitute vessel freight differential and (incongruously) (ii) storage charges for one less parcel shipped. Both claims were dismissed. The ‘substitute’ was in fact a vessel already chartered by and performing the trade for Charterers, having loaded and sailed before Owners’ repudiatory breach and before the subject Vessel would have arrived to load, so its freight rate was not reflective of a higher market rate at any material time. Storage charges, if ever incurred (this seemed unlikely as the ‘substitute’ - one of a stream of Charterers’ vessels - had carried the parcel) were equally irrecoverable as they pre-dated the repudiatory breach and could not have been caused by it. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-p8s4a monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 9/23 Owners claimed a balance of T/C hire in an LMAA SCP arbitration. Charterers counterclaimed in respect of underperformance, but Owners argued that the counterclaim was not advanced within the mandatory time frame of Paragraph 5(g) of the SCP, obliging the Tribunal to shut it out. The Tribunal ruled that 5(g) was not a barring provision but nonetheless it could not adjudicate the counterclaim, as the T/C provided that in the event of a speed and consumption dispute, performance was to be analysed by “a mutually agreed weather routing company …whose findings will be final and binding” - which was absent. Owners were awarded their balance of hire claim (with some adjustments) and costs, but the Tribunal reserved jurisdiction to deal with Charterers’ counterclaim in the future, if advanced with a qualifying weather routing company analysis. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/smart-gain-shipping-co-ltd-v-langlois-enterprises-ltd monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/60500e8d-83c5-4a40-b8ed-16d7090088c8/underwater-hull-cleaning-before-before-chios-commercial-divers-4444.jpg Case Summaries - Smart Gain Shipping Co. Ltd v Langlois Enterprises Ltd [2023] A T/C clause provided for underwater cleaning (necessitated by Charterers’ trading) to be done “at first workable opportunity and always at Charterers’ time and expense”. The Court on a s.69 appeal upheld the Tribunal’s ruling that post-redelivery cleaning time was reimbursable, and at the T/C rate (without Owners having to prove loss of time and damages suffered). https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/londonarbitration7/2new monthly 0.5 2023-08-29 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 7/23 In the arbitration reported last week, Owners had alleged several breaches by Time Charterers and claimed USD160,000 resulting damages for a ‘lost fixture’, plus an alleged crew – war risk area – bonus. The Tribunal had dismissed the latter and awarded damages only on the basis and in the (substantially smaller) amount admitted (and part-paid) by Charterers. Owners as ‘successful’ party sought 100% of their costs. The Tribunal took into account that Owners had failed to support claims promptly or at all; that Charterers correctly foresaw the outcome and made a WP offer accordingly, which indicated goodwill, although they failed to include interest or any costs. The Tribunal ruled that Charterers bear their own costs and just 40% of Owners’ recoverable costs, from which the Tribunal excluded pre-action costs of general investigation not reflected in the arbitration claim. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jbr/v/londonarbitration4/23-fmg6k-n4w7e-a2gt5 monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/8403b8a5-882c-4afd-9251-b4f4ae551a36/Port-overview-scaled.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 7/23 Under a T/C trip with redelivery one safe port India or Pakistan, Charterers, following final discharge at Gadani, Pakistan, ordered the Vessel to another port for repair of discharging damage and then purported to redeliver at Fujairah, UAE (outside redelivery range). Dismissing Owners’ claim for a missed follow-on fixture, the Tribunal was only willing to allow damages, at the T/C rate, for a theoretical voyage Fujairah/Gadani. The only breach was redelivery at the wrong place; there was no late redelivery and other alleged breaches (unsafe discharging/ unauthorised sub-letting) were not causative. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jbr/v/londonarbitration6/23-c3ryp monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 4/23 Under an ongoing T/C trip Owners claimed and commenced arbitration for a USD3m balance of hire. Some 3 weeks later, the parties entered a T/C addendum resolving the disputes to date upon payment of USD1m by Charterers. Owners contended that the addendum was unenforceable for want of consideration. Charterers responded that the settlement of accrued disputes, including the relinquishment of their own claims, was the consideration. The Tribunal found that the addendum was valid and enforceable. Nevertheless, as Charterers failed to pay some US$200k subsequently accruing in respect of delay in berthing (as per invoice dated 4 weeks post addendum), the Tribunal agreed with Owners that such failure amounted to repudiatory breach of the addendum, which therefore fell away, leaving Owners’ rights those provided in the T/C, so their original claim succeed. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jbr/v/londonarbitration6/23 monthly 0.5 2023-06-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 6/23 After a voyage-chartered Vessel suffered a breakdown, repairs extended the transit by some 5 months during which size restrictions at the discharge port changed, causing a change of destination and delays in receivers making arrangements. Allowing Owners’ resulting demurrage claim, the Tribunal found no grounds for unseaworthiness at the beginning of the voyage, nor were the repairs unduly delayed (given the pandemic). The NOR was valid, laytime expired and the demurrage claim was payable. Consequential loss of time was not recoverable under the Owners’ fault basis. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-mc3a7 monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 5/23 A single message from Time Charterers (who were allegedly unpaid by sub-charterers) to Owners "Owners... decision not to discharge... to protect owners and charterers interests may be... prudent" was held not to amount to an instruction to Owners not to discharge the cargo. Nor did the B/L (under which Owners undertook to deliver the cargo) contain any lien entitling Time Charterers to give any such instruction. Time Charterers' damages claim failed. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-k8jsm monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Rhine Shipping DMCC v Vitol SA [2023] EWHC 1265 – 26 May 2023 (Simon Birt KC) Rhine as Disponent Owners voyage chartered a vessel to Vitol. Third parties arrested Rhine’s bunkers and property on board at the first load port. In the ensuing delay, claimed Vitol, the price payable by them for the second load port cargo increased, causing them loss of some USD3.7m, for which they sought damages. The Court found Rhine in breach of the CP warranty: “…Vessel, Owners….disponent owners are free of any encumbrances….that may affect performance…”; and that the “Third Party Arrest” clause: “…in the event of arrest…levied against the vessel….Owner shall indemnify Charterer for any damages…” was activated. In awarding Vitol the damages sought, the Court ruled that price fluctuation was within the contemplation of the parties and that in any event the rules of remoteness did not apply to the indemnity. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-m453k monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Fimbank Plc v KCH Shipping Co., Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 569– 24 May 2023 (Males LJ, Popplewell LJ, Nugee LJ) The CA upheld the first instance judgment that the claims against the carrier for misdelivery were time-barred by Art. III r.6 of the Hague Visby Rules as they were brought more than one year after cargo discharge. The CA found that both the language and purpose of the rule and the travaux préparatoires of the convention make it clear that it applies even when misdelivery occurs after completion of discharge. Nor did the CA accept that Congenbill clause 2(c) disapplied the rule: if the carrier remains liable after discharge, there would be no reason to exclude the time-bar defence. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-yxr6a monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Jalla &amp; Anor v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co Ltd &amp; Anor [2023] UKSC 16 – 10 May 2023 (Reed LJ, Briggs LJ, Kitchin LJ, Sales LJ, Burrows LJ) Following a major oil spill off the Nigerian coast in 2011, land owners claimed in private nuisance for damage to their land, alleging that as the oil remained uncleaned, the nuisance was ongoing and the limitation period re-started daily. Confirming the Courts below, the Supreme Court ruled that the spill was a single event, and the tort was complete once the oil impacted the Claimants' land. The Claimants' argument was rejected as it would undermine the law on limitation by extending the time bar indefinitely. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-6km9y monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Unicredit Bank AG v Euronav NV [2023] EWCA Civ 47 – 4 May 2023 (Asplin LJ, Popplewell LJ, Falk LJ) Unicredit financed the sale of a cargo of LSFO by BP to Gulf. BP chartered the vessel from Euronav but further to a novation agreement, Gulf became charterer in BP’s place. Euronav thereafter delivered the cargo to Gulf without production of the b/l, which had not by then been endorsed to Unicredit by BP. Being unpaid by Gulf, the Bank claimed against Euronav for breach of the contract of carriage. The CA disagreed with the Court below that the b/l remained a mere receipt following novation. However, it agreed that Euronav’s breach was not causative of the loss, as on the evidence, the Bank would in any event have ordered delivery to Gulf. The Bank’s appeal was dismissed. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-36get monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Quadra Commodities S.A. v XL Insurance Company SE and Others [2023] EWCA Civ 432 – 21 April 2023 (Sir Julian Flaux LJ, Popplewell LJ, Snowden LJ) Quadra claimed that grain cargoes it purchased, stored in silos, were fraudulently misappropriated by sellers and sought reimbursement under its marine cargo policy. The CA confirmed the Court below, ruling that, despite the goods being unascertained, there was nonetheless an insurable interest, engaging XL's liability to Quadra. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-36get-4s9k3 monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Ixom Operations Pty Ltd v Blue One Shipping SA (The CS Onsan) [2023] FCAFC 25 – 7 March 2023 (Rares J, Derrington J and Stewart J) To preserve the Hague-Visby Rules’ 1-year time bar, cargo Buyers obtained a time extension from Shipowners alone before pursuing claims against them – and Disponent Owners – for cargo contamination. Buyers pleaded that both Shipowners and Disponent Owners were estopped from denying that they were parties to the b/l because of the misrepresentation contained in the email granting the extension. The Full Court confirmed the first instance judgment that no claim could be made against Disponent Owners because of the time bar and against Shipowners because they were no party to the contract of carriage. No estoppel could be found because any representation should be clear and unambiguous, the subjective understanding of misrepresentee being irrelevant. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-7yztj monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Smit Salvage BV &amp; Ors v Luster Maritime SA &amp; Anr (The ‘Ever Given’) [2023] EWHC 697 – 3- March 2023 (Baker J) The Claimant Salvors of the Suez Canal-grounded “Ever Given”, sought remuneration from the Defendant Owners pursuant to the Salvage Convention or at common law. The Court decided a preliminary issue as to whether (as Owners argued) remuneration was governed by a concluded binding agreement (based on some ‘main terms’ plus a confirmation). The Owners’ defence failed as it was found that, by their exchanges and conduct objectively assessed, the parties did not purport to conclude a binding contract but merely reached an agreement as to the remuneration terms for a wider contract that was being negotiated. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-pjby9 monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Allianz Insurance Plc v University of Exeter [2023] EWHC 630 (TCC) – 22 March 2023 (Bird J) The University suffered property damage when a previously undiscovered undetonated German bomb (nicknamed 'the Hermann' after Göring) dropped in 1942 was subjected to a controlled detonation. The Claimant Insurers sought a declaration that the damage was "occasioned by war" entitling them to rely on the policy war exclusion clause. In determining the “proximate cause” of the loss, the Court held the common-sense analysis was that it was caused by the explosion necessitated by the reasonable and correct decision to detonate; that decision was necessitated by the original dropping of the bomb which was the “obvious proximate cause of the damage”. The damage was “occasioned by war”. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-nkk79 monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Primafacio Ltd v Tres Canopia Ltd &amp; Anor [2023] EWHC 430 – 2 March 2022 (Teare J) The Claimant claimed an unpaid amount under a share purchase agreement, against the purchaser (D1, a Cypriot company) and guarantor (D2, a BVI company). The Defendants counterclaimed that they were entitled to set-off the equivalent amount. In ordering that the Defendants secure the Claimants’ costs of defending the counterclaim (by way of a first-Class London bank guarantee), the Court found there was reason to believe (and not just suspect) that D1 would be unable to pay those costs. Nor was it willing to accept that an undertaking by D2 to pay D1’s costs was sufficient: despite contentions that D2 and its subsidiaries had net assets over USD67m and cash over USD10m, the evidence was unconvincing and D2 was a BVI corporation, not obliged to file audited accounts. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jbr/v/raj-v-tar monthly 0.5 2023-08-29 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Rajabieslami v Tariverdi &amp; Ors [2023] In a dispute between those interested in a Liberian one-ship company, the Claimant Iranian national (resident in Qatar) claimed that the 1st Defendant Iranian national (resident in England and Greece) had failed to honour a Trust and had ‘stolen’ and sold the subject Vessel, whereas the latter claimed that the shares (and Vessel) were his outright (having been exchanged for Persian carpets worth some USD9m). The present judgment involved D1’s application for security for costs, which the Court granted, as it met the CPR gateway tests and the “factual complication” (including allegations of fraud, forgeries and misconduct) made it impossible for the Court to investigate the merits and form a view on the likely success or otherwise of the claim by the time it reached trial. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jbr/v/london-arb-1-23 monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 1/23 Under a T/C on an amended Asbatime 1981 form, Charterers warranted that their orders would respect the C/P maximum duration, failing which Owners (Clause 119) had the option to refuse an offending order, or to perform it “without prejudice to their right to claim damages, including consequential damages….in case of late redelivery”. Following an admitted late delivery, Charterers argued that damages should be limited to the difference between market and C/P rate for the extended period. However, the Tribunal also awarded Owners the losses they claimed thereafter, arising out of cancellation of the follow-on fixture repositioning the Vessel for a planned dry-docking. The Tribunal found that Clause 119 was an exception to the ordinary measure of damages and that here Charterers were aware at the time of fixing of the importance of timely redelivery due to dry-dock commitments and the commercial likelihood of a repositioning fixture. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jbr/v/panocean-v-daelim monthly 0.5 2023-08-29 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Pan Ocean Co Ltd v Daelim Corporation [2023] An amended NYPE 93 placed the Vessel off-hire in case of hold inspection failure “until the vessel … passes”. The Tribunal implied Charterers’ obligation to carry out any reinspection with reasonable diligence and without undue delay, and found that a delay of some 12 days since Owners’ notification that holds were cleaned was excessive and did not qualify as off-hire. On appeal, the Court agreed that the Tribunal had applied the correct legal test for the implied term (objectively necessary or obvious) but ruled that off-hire did not cease on Owners’ notification but when the reinspection ought to have taken place. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jbr/v/fmg-v-msc monthly 0.5 2023-08-29 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - FMG Hong Kong Shipping Ltd, the Demise Charterers of FMG SYDNEY v Owners of the MSC APOLLO [2023] “Sydney” collided with “Apollo” in the approaches to Tianjin, causing collective damage of some USD13.5m. The Court found that despite adequate manning and look-out, the “Apollo” Master had failed to appreciate how the Vessels were approaching each-other (which was in fact port to port) and attempted to cross ahead of “Sydney” “in flagrant breach of the crossing rule”. Despite some criticisms of “Sydney” none was found to be causative, and “Apollo” was held 100% responsible. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-ce6xm monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - PJSC National Bank Trust &amp; Anor v Boris Mints &amp; Ors [2023] EWHC 118 – 27 January 2023 (Cockerill J) Further to the implementation of sanctions against Russian entities after the invasion of Ukraine, the Defendants in a fraud litigation applied for a stay of the proceedings and release from existing freezing orders against them. The Court dismissed the application by holding that (i) sanctioned claimants can sue for and pay damages; (ii) judgment can lawfully be entered in their favour; (ii) payment of costs to and by them and security for costs to be provided by them are licensable activities. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-amdnc monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Sharp Corp Ltd v Viterra BV [2023] EWCA Civ 7 – 11 January 2023 (Asplin LJ, Popplewell LJ, Phillips LJ) Further to the buyers’ default payments under 2 sale contracts on c&f “free out” terms, the sellers managed to resell the peas and lentils cargoes to another company and were awarded damages by an arbitration award. The buyers appealed on the measure of damages under clause 25.c of GAFTA24. The first instance judge found no error of law in the tribunal’s decision based on the market price in Vancouver and the market rate of freight for carriage to the discharge port of Mundra. The CA held that the value of the goods fell to be measured by reference to a notional sale of the goods in bulk ex warehouse Mundra on the relevant date of default, but with risk passing to the buyer at the date of contract. The awards were thus remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jbr/v/jm monthly 0.5 2023-08-29 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - JBR Capital Ltd v JM Investments/Trading Ltd &amp; Anor [2023] EWHC 174 – 3 February 2023 (Ms Clare Ambrose) Under hire purchase agreements relating to high-end cars, the Defendants defaulted on their scheduled payments to the Claimants. The Claimants issued warnings as to reliance on the contractual termination clause, then entered negotiations but ultimately terminated - without intimating that negotiations had ended. Dismissing the Defendants’ case based on waiver or estoppel (specifically forbearance) the Court held that there was neither agreement nor unequivocal representation by the Claimants not to enforce their termination rights (nor any reliance by the Defendants). https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-6fl9f monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Africa Sourcing Cameroun LTD &amp; Anor v. LMBS Societe Par Actions Simplifiee &amp; Anor. [2023] EWHC 150 – 27 January 2023 (Sir Ross Cranston) The Claimant cocoa traders sought to set aside an Award of the Board of Appeal of the Federation of Cocoa Commerce (FCC), on the basis of 'serious irregularity' (s.68) alleging bias of the Tribunal's chairman due to reasons including his participation in and querying of the Claimants' earlier application for FCC membership, his socialising with and previous trading with Defendants. The Court found no breach of any disclosure duty by the chairman and that a fair minded and informed observer would not consider that his limited involvement with the Defendants gave rise to a risk of bias. The Award (ruling that the Claimants' claim was time-barred) was confirmed. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/fastfreight-bulk-trident monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Fastfreight Pte Ltd v Bulk Trident Shipping Ltd (Re Arbitration Act 1996) [2023] EWHC 105 – 24 January 2023 (Henshaw J) Under an amended NYPE 93 C/P, Charterers ceased paying hire alleging that whilst crew members were testing Covid-positive, the Vessel was off-hire. The C/P provided that no hire deductions were permissible without Owners' written agreement. The Court, on appeal, upheld the Tribunal's ruling that Owners reasonably withheld permission and that the deduction was wrongful. Hire remained payable even if it might later be determined or agreed that the Vessel was indeed off-hire. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-gl46z monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Trafigura Pte Ltd v TKK Shipping Pte Ltd (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 26 – 13 January 2023 (Teare J) Further to the vessel’s grounding, Cargo Interests claimed damages in respect of their payments to salvors, on-shipment costs and the physical damage to the cargo incurred during re-floating operations. The Carrier relied on Article IV(5)(a) of the Hague Visby Rules to argue that its liability was limited by reference to the weight of the limited quantity of cargo which had suffered physical damage. The Court found that the phrase “goods lost or damaged” in the article includes both physical and economic damage. The limit was thus to be calculated on the basis of the full cargo as the damages and costs incurred had diminished the value of or affected economically the cargo as a whole. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/maranello monthly 0.5 2023-01-12 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Maranello Rosso Ltd v Lohomij BV &amp; Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 1667 – 21 December 2022 (Asplin LJ, Arnold LJ, Phillips LJ) Following a dispute, the Seller of a premium car collection reached agreement with the selling auction house in respect of "all and any claims". The Seller later sued its financing company and the auction house for conspiracy to injure its interests by unlawful means (selling the cars at an undervalue). The CA confirmed the ruling of the Court below that the settlement agreement released the parties and compromised even claims for fraud and dishonesty, despite these neither featuring in the original dispute nor being expressly mentioned in the settlement agreement. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-zc9s3 monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 33/22 Owners succeeded in avoiding an agreement settling a repair Yard’s invoice (albeit in ‘full and final’ terms, acknowledging satisfaction with work and that no claims could ensue) on the grounds of economic duress. The Tribunal found both the Yard’s insistence on a non-contractual waiver and the threat of exercising a non-contractual lien (thereby preventing the ship’s sailing), to be unlawful and amounting to illegitimate pressure. It was open to Owners to pursue their claims for delayed completion and disputed amounts (which largely succeeded) and loss of profit (which failed, the daily delay penalty sufficing). https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/havila-sanctions monthly 0.5 2022-12-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Havila Kystruten AS &amp; Ors v STLC Europe Twenty-Three Leasing Ltd &amp; Anor [2022] EWHC 3166 – 08 December 2022 (Stephen Houseman KC) Norwegian Havila group commissioned the building of 4 vessels financed by sale and lease-back arrangements with the Defendants, who were Irish-registered, indirect subsidiaries of a Russian state-owned entity. The Defendants relied on consequences flowing from the imposition of EU Sanctions as constituting contractual Termination Events, requiring “immediate” payment by Havila of Termination Sums; in the absence of such payment, the Defendants invoked contractual Enforcement Events, allowing foreclosure. The Court ruled that there were Termination (not Enforcement) Events and that payment of Termination Sums to the Defendants’ nominated, but frozen, account would constitute good discharge of Havila’s obligations. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-2sac7 monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 32/22 Time Charterers under an amended NYPE deducted for underperformance, relying on their weather routing company’s (WRC) report. One C/P clause contained performance criteria and good weather benchmarks, another the sources of weather data, namely Vessel log and WRC. The Tribunal found the WRC had not adhered to the benchmarks when assessing a period of some 48 hours as good weather because (i) the WRC’s ‘current factor’ netted adverse and favourable currents – and the latter should not be taken into account; and (ii) the WRC’s combined significant wave height data made it impossible to assess swell direction. Even though the Tribunal found that the log exaggerated sea and swell, and the WRC report was reliably sourced, the latter was not in compliance with the C/P and was therefore not valid as a resolution of the underperformance claim, causing Charterers’ claim to fail. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/pacific-v-quick-emc2w monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Arnold v Halcyon Yachts Ltd [2022] EWHC 2858 – 18 November 2022 (Registrar Davison) A, owner of a transatlantic yacht contracted with H, a yacht transportation company, for her delivery to Delaware, USA. The yacht set sail in mid-November, her route being via Spain, Azores, Bermuda (the “northern route”). Severe weather and an accumulation of boat defects convinced the crew to put back to the Azores for repairs. Ultimately another contractor completed the transit the following year. A relied on a repudiatory breach by H and claimed its extra delivery charges, repair costs and marina fees citing A’s choice of the wrong route, failure to assess weather conditions, and damaging the yacht. The Court found that H’s planning and execution of the voyage was carried out with the necessary skill and care; the damage was attributable to multiple manufacturing defects. There was no breach and H was awarded its counterclaim for unpaid sums under the contract. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/pacific-v-quick monthly 0.5 2022-11-17 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - MV Pacific Pearl Co Ltd v Quick Ship Holdings SA [2022] EWHC 2828 – 11 November 2022 (Baker J) Panamax Alexander (“PA”) was moored in a narrow part of the Suez Canal awaiting repairs/towage following a collision the previous day. NYK Falcon (“F”) and NYK Orpheus (“O”) passed by PA as part of a convoy. After F cleared PA the latter’s stern ropes parted and she swung into the channel. O collided with her. In consolidated proceedings the Court found F “clumsy” in the passing manoeuvre but greater blame lay with PA’s poor mooring and reaction and O’s excessive speed. PA and O were more than doubly to blame. Pa and O were ordered to pay 5/12 of the other damages and F 1/6 of PA’s. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/msc/v/conti monthly 0.5 2022-11-10 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v Stolt Tank Containers BV &amp; Ors [2022] EWHC 2476 – 2 November 2022 (Baker J) The MSC Flaminia suffered a cargo fire and explosion (originating in laden containers) causing, sadly, loss of life and personal injury and giving rise to numerous claims including for cargo damage. Time Charterers (MSC) sought to limit their liability viz a viz Owners for damage to the Vessel, pursuant to Art.2.1 of the Amended 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability: “Claims in respect of … loss or damage to property…occurring on board….and consequential loss”. MSC argued that Vessel damage was “consequential loss” flowing from cargo damage thus entitling them to limit under Art. 2.1. The Court disagreed: Owners’ claim was for Vessel damage, not cargo damage. MSC were solely time charterers, not cargo owners. Owners’ claim was not, therefore, limitable. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/fim-v-kch monthly 0.5 2022-11-04 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Fimbank Plc v KCH Shipping Co., Ltd [2022] EWHC 2400 – 28 September 2022 (Sir William Blair) The Tribunal held the claims against the carrier for misdelivery after cargo discharge were time-barred by Art. III r.6 of the Hague Visby Rules. The Claimant (financiers and B/L holders) argued the Rules only applied to the sea voyage, not misdelivery from storage, and that the time-bar immunity ended when the cargo was discharged. The High court dismissed the appeal (s.69) and upheld the Tribunal’s award. Most deliveries take place after discharge, and outside of carrier’s control, and it would be odd if the critical distinction for time bar purposes depended on the timing of delivery. Such an interpretation was consistent with the objective of finality and to allow a carrier to “close his books”. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/ceto-v-savory monthly 0.5 2022-11-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Ceto Shipping Corporation v Savory Shipping Inc [2022] EWHC 2636 – 21 October 2022 (Baker J) The demise charter contained a purchase obligation by Charterers at expiry. Title would pass automatically provided “Charterers have paid all hire… and… all management fees... due”. Charterers subsequently faced claims for management fees and crew wages, and a Singapore Court ordered the Vessel’s sale. Charterers, who disputed these claims, argued that disputed debts were not “due” and that Vessel title had passed to them. The Court disagreed; reasonable business persons would consider an amount due despite being disputed. There was nothing unfair to Charterers about a bona fide dispute depriving Charterers of the passing of title when they had failed to satisfy the conditions set out in the c/p. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-31-22 monthly 0.5 2022-10-24 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 31/22 Charterers instructed Owners to not “allow sampling and discharge” as receivers had not paid. Owners claimed damages for the detention and relied on a provision in the Recap allowing time lost to be reimbursed as damages. Charterers disagreed and argued demurrage was only remedy for failing to complete discharge within time. The Tribunal agreed; the Recap also contained an express term stating “CARGO ANALYSES…IMPORT AND/OR EXPORT FORMALITIES” to count as laytime. This included “cargo sampling” and Charterers’ delayed authorisation. Owners claim for damages failed, but they were entitled to demurrage with laytime running as stipulated in the Recap. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-30-22-lrlhy monthly 0.5 2022-10-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Vitol SA v JE Energy Ltd [2022] EWHC 2494 – 07 October 2022 (Lionel Persey KC) Vitol sold 30,000 mt fuel oil to JE, FOB Tema with laycan 23-24 December; further terms were envisaged, for example as to the L/C. JE failed to nominate a vessel to arrive Tema within laycan but Vitol continued to demand performance (rather than cancel) until on 1 February, JE declared the contract ‘null and void’ at which point Vitol treated JE as in repudiatory breach. JE argued that in context ‘laycan’ here simply indicated a loading period, which in the event was subsequently extended by agreement to 31 January. The Court found that ‘laycan’ had its traditional meaning and any agreed extension related solely to L/C arrangements. Vitol’s claim for market value (based on its own sales and statistics) of approximately USD3.3m was accepted. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-lc5g2 monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Pola Logistics Ltd v GTLK Europe DAC &amp; Ors [2022] IEHC 501 – 25 August 2022 (Sanfey J) Pola bareboat chartered 7 vessels (with purchase options) for 10 years from D2 (Malta) to fulfil its long-term, continuing, contracts. D2 is wholly owned by D1 (Irish), in turn beneficially owned by Russian interests subject to EU and US sanctions (the latter with a 1.9.22 deadline for transactions, and both impacting on Pola). Although the C/Ps were subject to English law/ Arbitration, Pola commenced substantive proceedings in Ireland seeking (inter alia) on a summary basis, urgent specific performance of its purchase options and orders abridging the option notice periods. As Ds 1 and 2 indicated they would comply with the Irish Court’s orders, the Court granted these 3 reliefs, in particular as damages would not have been an adequate alternative to specific performance. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-30-22 monthly 0.5 2022-09-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 30/22 Owners claimed demurrage under an amended Asbatankvoy. Charterers challenged the validity of an NOR as tendered via email, a means not listed by Clause 6 “letter, telegraph, wireless or telephone”. “Wireless”, Charterers argued, referred solely to VHF/radio transmission and the Asbatankvoy form pre-dated email. Owners proved that the NOR email had been transmitted via vessel’s wireless communication system (and email existed before the Asbatankvoy). Owners’ claim, thus, succeeded. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-w2a24 monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - S&amp;B Consultancy Services Ltd v Bourn &amp; Anors [2022] EWHC 2359 – 20 September 2022 (Mr Simon Birt KC) The Claimant claimed fees under an introductory agency agreement. The Defendant alleged that the Claimant had breached financial services legislation - sec. 26(3) of the FSMA - rendering the agency unenforceable. The Claimant applied to strike out the defence and/or for summary judgment. The Court declined as (i) the subject is an area of developing jurisprudence and decisions on novel points of law should be based on actual findings of fact; (ii) given the uncertainty, it was not possible to conclude that the Defendant had no real prospect of success and (iii) a trial would still be needed to investigate the other defences related to the construction of the agency. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-y9cba monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 27/22 When the vessel, chartered on a NYPE form cp, arrived at loadport, her whole crew were tested because the third engineer had presented covid symptoms. In the end only the bosun tested positive so the port authorities ordered a 14-day quarantine. Owners claimed some US$ 275k balance of hire but charterers held the vessel off-hire from arrival at loadport to the end of quarantine. Owners relied on Clause 114 pursuant to which in the specific case of loss of time due to quarantine procedures to combat avian influenza, the vessel would not be off-hire. Charterers relied on the exclusion in the same clause, for which Owners would bear the loss of time and related costs if arising “as a direct consequence of the vessel’s or officers/crew’s history prior to delivery”. The Tribunal found that quarantine would have not been ordered had the bosun not tested positive, so it did not arise as a consequence of events prior to delivery. Owners’ claim thus succeeded. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-29-22 monthly 0.5 2022-09-08 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 29/22 An amended NYPE c/p specified in its description clause the parameters on which performance warranties were based including winds not exceeding Beaufort 4 and waves not greater then DSS3, no adverse current, no swell. The Tribunal rejected Charterers’ argument that these parameters were negated by a separate weather routing clause, and found that the performance analysis of Charterers’ weather bureaus was inconsistent with the description parameters by (i) the use of ‘significant wave height’ (ii) applying a positive current factor but not recognising an adverse one or swell. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-7784l monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 28/22 Pursuant to a supply contract, Claimants supplied bunkers, ordered by Time Charterers (D1) to a Vessel and, being unpaid, commenced arbitration for the invoiced amount, against (D1) and Disponent Owners, who subsequently became bareboat charterers, (D2) . The Tribunal found that the contract definition of ‘Buyer’ was wide enough to cover Ds 1 and 2 and that a clause creating a maritime lien pursuant to US law, created one applicable outside the US, and which attached prior to D2’s acquisition of its interest. The Tribunal found Ds1 and 2 jointly and severally liable for the invoiced amount, interest and costs. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/eps-v-pola monthly 0.5 2022-08-26 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Eastern Pacific Chartering Inc v Pola Maritime Ltd [2022] EWHC 2095 – 10 August 2022 (Ms Clare Ambrose) The Claimant Owners claimed unpaid T/C hire in High Court proceedings and to secure that claim, arrested a ship, believed to be in Charterers’ ownership, at Gibraltar. The Defendant Charterers sought to set off against hire (i) tortious damages for wrongful arrest; (ii) damages for breach of the C/P delivery/maintenance provisions by reason of hull fouling and (iii) underperformance. In principle, the Court would have entertained (i) Gibraltar Admiralty law reflecting English law - but found the arrest not wrongful. It disallowed (ii) damages for hull fouling as they would duplicate (iii) the performance claim, which was partially allowed - some good weather underperformance having been made out. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/cm-v-petroleos monthly 0.5 2022-08-17 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - CM P-Max III Ltd v Petroleos Del Norte SA (Re MT Stena Primorsk Voyage Charter) [2022] EWHC 2147 – 12 August 2022 (Bird J) In response to Owners’ demurrage claim under a Shellvoy 6, Charterers contended that in breach, the Vessel had left the discharge berth and refused to return. The Court upheld the Master’s decision finding that at all material times the berth left an unacceptable safety margin under the C/P (Q88) Under Keel Clearance policy, such that Owners could not be satisfied that the Vessel would discharge cargo always ‘safely afloat’ as required. There was no breach by Owners. Although not a necessary finding, the Court commented that almost certainly Charterers would have been in breach had they persisted in their orders. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-8dckr monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - CM P-Max III Ltd v Petroleos Del Norte SA (Re MT Stena Primorsk Voyage Charter) [2022] EWHC 2147 – 12 August 2022 (Bird J) In response to Owners’ demurrage claim under a Shellvoy 6, Charterers contended that in breach, the Vessel had left the discharge berth and refused to return. The Court upheld the Master’s decision finding that at all material times the berth left an unacceptable safety margin under the C/P (Q88) Under Keel Clearance policy, such that Owners could not be satisfied that the Vessel would discharge cargo always ‘safely afloat’ as required. There was no breach by Owners. Although not a necessary finding, the Court commented that almost certainly Charterers would have been in breach had they persisted in their orders. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-mj8ac monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Candey Ltd v Bosheh &amp; Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 1103 – 1 August 2022 (Coulson LJ, Arnold LJ, Phillips LJ) The Claimant solicitors acted for the Defendant clients in fraud/ conspiracy claims brought by Sheik Mohammed. As the Defendants settled with the Sheik on drop-hands terms, depriving the Claimants of any cost recovery, the latter sued their former clients for some £3m, alleging breach of an implied duty of good faith in the retainer. The CA, upholding the Commercial Court, rejected the implication of such a term as it failed to fulfil criteria of business efficacy or obviousness; nor was a solicitor's retainer a 'relational' contract where such a duty might apply. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/ocm-v-courage monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - OCM Maritime Nile LLC &amp; Anor v Courage Shipping Co. &amp; Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 1091 – 29 July 2022 (Underhill LJ, Newey LJ, Males LJ) Following the Commercial Court’s confirmation that Owners could terminate an amended Barecon 2001 and repossess 2 Vessels (the US having designated Charterers’ beneficial owner as a global terrorist – a C/P “Event of Default”), Charterers appealed the right to repossession and the absence of relief from forfeiture. The CA confirmed the Court below: (i) a demand for payment was a C/P option not a pre-condition to repossession, and (ii) although the US sanction regime was itself sufficient to exclude relief from forfeiture, Charterers’ misconduct (pre-litigation dishonest dealings with Owners and then misleading the Court) reinforced this conclusion. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/omya-v-andrews monthly 0.5 2022-07-28 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Omya UK Ltd v Andrews Excavations Ltd &amp; Anor [2022] EWHC 1882 – 19 July 2022 (Mr Roger Ter Haar QC) Omya succeeded in its claim for GBP765,094.40 and, having made a (rejected) Pt.36 offer to accept GBP756,287.05, sought enhanced interest (up to 10% above base) and indemnity costs. Despite the damages exceeding the offer by a margin of just 1.15%, the Court ruled that it was a genuine one and the usual consequences should apply. As the Court found the Defendants’ general conduct to be highly unreasonable (implausible and absurd defences and denials) it awarded indemnity costs both before and after expiry of the offer; due to the narrow margin, however, it restricted interest to 5% above base. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-ack8z monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation v Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the STI Orchard, Winson Oil Trading Pte Ltd intervening (The “STI Orchard”) [2022] SGHCR 6 – 23 May 2022 The Cargo was delivered to the buyer without the production of bills of lading. HLT became insolvent and defaulted on credit facilities provided by the Bank in which had entered into trade financing arrangements. The Bank sought summary judgement for breach on the contract of carriage and it acquired rights of suit as the lawful holder of the bills of lading. The Court held the summary judgement would be refused and the owners had arguable defences that should go to the trial; the Bank had not met the threshold of honest conduct and the defence that the bills were not spent was not arguable. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-hmgbh monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Omya UK Ltd v Andrews Excavations Ltd &amp; Anor [2022] EWHC 1882 – 19 July 2022 (Mr Roger Ter Haar QC) Omya succeeded in its claim for GBP765,094.40 and, having made a (rejected) Pt.36 offer to accept GBP756,287.05, sought enhanced interest (up to 10% above base) and indemnity costs. Despite the damages exceeding the offer by a margin of just 1.15%, the Court ruled that it was a genuine one and the usual consequences should apply. As the Court found the Defendants’ general conduct to be highly unreasonable (implausible and absurd defences and denials) it awarded indemnity costs both before and after expiry of the offer; due to the narrow margin, however, it restricted interest to 5% above base. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/kyla-v-freight monthly 0.5 2022-07-24 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Kyla Shipping Co Ltd &amp; Anor v Freight Trading Ltd &amp; Ors [2022] EWHC 1625 – 1 July 2022 (Baker J) Kyla sought damages of some USD32m in connection with pre-2008 FFAs. It sought to rely on s32 of the Limitation Act to postpone the (otherwise) 2013 time bar. The Court ruled that although Kyla’s underlying claim was well founded, a reasonable person should have taken at least a degree of serious interest in why such losses were suffered and thus Kyla could with reasonable diligence have discovered the relevant mistake, disloyalty or concealment within the 6 years. The claim was thus time-barred, and dismissed. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-23-22 monthly 0.5 2022-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 23/22 Owners settled cargo interests’ claim (heat damaged soybeans) and sought 100% contribution from Time Charterers pursuant to cl.8 of the ICA (incorporated into the C/P) on the basis that there was “clear and irrefutable evidence” that the cargo was loaded with excessive moisture content, thus of Charterers’ neglect. The Tribunal, whilst finding the settlement reasonable (cl.4 ICA), nevertheless awarded Owners just 50%, there being no “clear and irrefutable evidence” of Charterers’ neglect, indeed rain wetting due to Owners’ failure promptly to close hatch covers was equally possible, if not likely. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/nkd-v-bart monthly 0.5 2022-07-07 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - NKD Maritime Ltd v Bart Maritime (No. 2) Inc [2022] EWHC 1615 - 24 June 2022 (Foxton J) Cash buyers (NKD) of the Shagang Giant purported to terminate the MOA on the grounds that Indian Covid-19 restrictions constituted force majeure preventing both Vessel from reaching outer anchorage (“the Delivery Location”) and Sellers (Bart) from transferring title as per the MOA. The Court disagreed. The force majeure clause was applicable to an inability to transfer title, not an inability to deliver; Sellers had not been precluded from the former, either by inability to reach the anchorage or by government restriction. In any event the Court found the Vessel had arrived at the Delivery Location. Sellers were entitled to the deposit (which exceeded the total losses claimed). https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/pacific-pearl-v-osios monthly 0.5 2022-07-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - M/V Pacific Pearl Co Ltd v Osios David Shipping Inc [2022] EWCA Civ 798 - 14 June 2022 (Lewison LJ, Males LJ, Snowden LJ) The High Court had found the Britannia LOU, despite its inclusion of a sanctions clause potentially suspending payment, to be in a form “reasonably satisfactory to the other” as required by the agreed ASG 2 form; nevertheless it found the Respondent under no obligation to accept it. The CA disagreed. On proper construction the ASG2 was to operate instead of an arrest and there was no right of arrest once security in in satisfactory form had been provided. An opposite finding, which would have allowed a beneficiary to seek better or alternative security elsewhere, was held contrary to Admiralty practice and the “clear purpose and…language of ASG 2”. The appeal was allowed. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-ats65 monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - M/V Pacific Pearl Co Ltd v Osios David Shipping Inc [2022] EWCA Civ 798 - 14 June 2022 (Lewison LJ, Males LJ, Snowden LJ) The High Court had found the Britannia LOU, despite its inclusion of a sanctions clause potentially suspending payment, to be in a form “reasonably satisfactory to the other” as required by the agreed ASG 2 form; nevertheless it found the Respondent under no obligation to accept it. The CA disagreed. On proper construction the ASG2 was to operate instead of an arrest and there was no right of arrest once security in in satisfactory form had been provided. An opposite finding, which would have allowed a beneficiary to seek better or alternative security elsewhere, was held contrary to Admiralty practice and the “clear purpose and…language of ASG 2”. The appeal was allowed. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/ari-v-wxj monthly 0.5 2022-06-23 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - ARI v WXJ [2022] EWHC 1543 (Comm) (20 June 2022)(Foxton J) The BARECON stipulated for arbitration (LMAA terms / 3 arbitrators) where a failure to appoint within 14 days entitled the commencing party to appoint their arbitrator as sole arbitrator without notice. The Respondent’s appointee was subsequently unable to participate (compensation below firm’s charge-out rate), and the Claimant argued failure to appoint and entitlement to appoint theirs as sole arbitrator. The Court disagreed; although remuneration was not agreed at the time, there was no conditionality when the Respondent’s appointee accepted the appointment and the Respondent “had unequivocally communicated its appointment” to both the Claimant and their arbitrator. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-20-22 monthly 0.5 2022-06-17 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 20/22 An “Uplift Term” was agreed in c/p (NYPE) under which Owners would supply an additional 200-300 mt delivery bunkers, against increased hire. Owners subsequently supplied 195 mt. Charterers sought a declaration that the minimum quantity had not been supplied and the “Uplift Term” not triggered, whilst Owners argued the “Additional Requirements” clause (defining “abt” as +/- 5%) was applicable. The Tribunal agreed with Owners; the parties intended “abt” to qualify all bunker quantities, its omission a clear mistake the Tribunal had power to correct, and its inclusion necessary for business efficacy. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-ddzae monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 20/22 An “Uplift Term” was agreed in c/p (NYPE) under which Owners would supply an additional 200-300 mt delivery bunkers, against increased hire. Owners subsequently supplied 195 mt. Charterers sought a declaration that the minimum quantity had not been supplied and the “Uplift Term” not triggered, whilst Owners argued the “Additional Requirements” clause (defining “abt” as +/- 5%) was applicable. The Tribunal agreed with Owners; the parties intended “abt” to qualify all bunker quantities, its omission a clear mistake the Tribunal had power to correct, and its inclusion necessary for business efficacy. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-9h2mj monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Laysun Service Co Ltd v Del Monte International GmbH [2022] EWHC 699 – 28 March 2022 (Calver J) The Tribunal held that as sanctions had prevented receivers’ payment and Iran stopped issuing import permits, it became impossible for Charterers to perform their obligations under the COA, triggering the force majeure clause contained therein. Owners appealed under s.69 AA, inter alia, on the point of law of whether Charterers were entitled to invoke force majeure for an inability to make payments and import the goods into Iran. The Court found such questions of law “thinly veiled challenges to the Tribunal’s findings of fact” and dismissed the appeal. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/wilforce-v-western-moscow monthly 0.5 2022-05-25 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Wilforce LLC &amp; Anor v Ratu Shipping Co. SA &amp; Anor [2022] EWHC 1190 – 20 May 2022 (Sir Nigel TEARE sitting as a Judge of the High Court with Nautical Assessors) After crossing in front of “ Wilforce” ( sailing east), “Western Moscow” turned to port (west) in order to join the westbound channel of the Singaporean Strait Traffic Scheme, and informed “Wilforce” they would “pass port to port”. A collision nevertheless ensued. “Western Moscow’s failure to sound/display appropriate signals, although in breach of COLREGs, was held non-causative. Rather, its poor lookout, “especially striking” when turning westwards where eastbound traffic was expected, caused its failure to “pass port to port”. However, “Wilforce”, in breach of local rules stipulating “maximum manoeuvring readiness”, had failed to reduce speed when collision risk was appreciated. The Court found “Western Moscow” 3 x more to blame and liability was apportioned 75%/25%. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-16-22 monthly 0.5 2022-05-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 16/22 Further to an electrical breakdown, Time-Charterers first placed the Vessel off-hire, and then terminated the Charterparty (with cargo on board), relying on the C/P cancellation clause and a repudiatory breach. Whilst the breakdown inferred breach of delivery condition, the Tribunal held it was not repudiatory; nor had Charterers complied with cancellation clause notice requirements. Until the Vessel proceeded to the discharge port and delivered the cargo, she was not at Owners’ disposal and not redelivered; the C/P remained live but the vessel was, however, off-hire from the moment she could not follow Charterers’ orders until commencement of discharge. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-skxh3 monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 16/22 Further to an electrical breakdown, Time-Charterers first placed the Vessel off-hire, and then terminated the Charterparty (with cargo on board), relying on the C/P cancellation clause and a repudiatory breach. Whilst the breakdown inferred breach of delivery condition, the Tribunal held it was not repudiatory; nor had Charterers complied with cancellation clause notice requirements. Until the Vessel proceeded to the discharge port and delivered the cargo, she was not at Owners’ disposal and not redelivered; the C/P remained live but the vessel was, however, off-hire from the moment she could not follow Charterers’ orders until commencement of discharge. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-15-22 monthly 0.5 2022-05-12 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 15/22 Multiple cargo Claimants, claiming cargo damage and short delivery under 14 B/Ls, alleged the cargo had been sold prior discharge to two of their number, who, as B/L holders had obtained title to sue pursuant to s.2(2)(a) of COGSA 1992. Shipowners put the Claimants to strict proof, from the outset, to evidence all endorsements and B/Ls movements, and that the cargo had not been sold onwards. The Tribunal placed little weight on witness evidence from the alleged cargo seller, nor on letters from the two Claimants confirming receipt of B/Ls and no onwards sale (produced some 4 years later). Contemporaneous material from the Claimants themselves was crucial – and absent. The Claimants had not established title to sue and their claim was dismissed. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-k6kj9 monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 15/22 Multiple cargo Claimants, claiming cargo damage and short delivery under 14 B/Ls, alleged the cargo had been sold prior discharge to two of their number, who, as B/L holders had obtained title to sue pursuant to s.2(2)(a) of COGSA 1992. Shipowners put the Claimants to strict proof, from the outset, to evidence all endorsements and B/Ls movements, and that the cargo had not been sold onwards. The Tribunal placed little weight on witness evidence from the alleged cargo seller, nor on letters from the two Claimants confirming receipt of B/Ls and no onwards sale (produced some 4 years later). Contemporaneous material from the Claimants themselves was crucial – and absent. The Claimants had not established title to sue and their claim was dismissed. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/unicredit-v-euronav monthly 0.5 2023-08-29 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Unicredit Bank AG v Euronav NV [2022] EWHC 957 – 28 April 2022 (Moulder J) Charterers (BP), holding B/Ls at the time, novated the charterparty to cargo buyers who thereafter took delivery without production of B/Ls. BP subsequently indorsed the B/Ls in favour of the Claimant cargo financiers who claimed against Owners for misdelivery. In siding with Owners, the Court held the B/Ls did not contain the contract of carriage post-novation nor was this the parties’ intention. The Claimant’s financing scheme would in any event have permitted delivery without B/Ls, and the Claimant’s loss was found not to have been caused by the delivery without B/Ls. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-14-22 monthly 0.5 2022-04-27 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 14/22 After ordering the Vessel to wait off port limits, Charterers required discharge at a 1st then 2nd berth, only permitted by the (1SP/ 1SB) Voyage C/P by “special agreement”. Owners insisted that Charterers first paid outstanding AWRP and fuel costs for a trip to replenish, both occasioned by the waiting. Charterers, having initially agreed, failed to pay. The Tribunal dismissed Charterers’ duress claim – Owners simply drove a hard bargain; nor was the agreement outside the C/P jurisdiction clause – it was concluded pursuant to a C/P term. Owners were entitled to both amounts. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/aquavita-v-indagro monthly 0.5 2022-04-21 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Aquavita International SA v Indagro SA [2022] EWHC 892 – 12 April 2022 (Foxton J) The defendant cargo buyers sought a ‘preliminary injunction’ from the Brazilian Court requiring discharge of cargo, despite B/Ls being withheld for non-payment. In England, Owners claimed an anti-suit injunction (‘ASI’) in support of the B/Ls’ London Arbitration clause. Although seeking interim performance elsewhere would not necessarily constitute a breach, Owners met the ‘high probability’ threshold in showing that the order in Brazil would, in practical terms, be final, outflanking the Arbitration Clause. Similar relief could have been sought in the chosen forum and the ASI was granted. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-gbnzk monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v Stolt Tank Containers BV &amp; Ors [2022] EWHC 835 – 12 April 2022 (Baker J) Following a deadly fire caused by dangerous cargo, the Tribunal issued a series of Awards, finding Time Charterers MSC liable to Owners, albeit not finding them negligent. MSC sought to limit liability under MSA 1995 (the Amended 1976 Convention). Owners challenged the right to limit, relying, inter alia, on Art.4 (excluding losses resulting “from [MSC’s] …act or omission, committed… recklessly”), arguing the Tribunal’s finding of no negligence obiter. The Court disagreed, ruling that the finding formed part of the final relief given by the Tribunal. Art.4 was not available to Owners and MSC could limit. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-13-22 monthly 0.5 2022-04-07 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 13/22 Time Charterers (NYPE) redelivered with excess ROB (about +155% IFO and +30% MGO). The Tribunal held that Owners were to reimburse ROB in excess of a 5% tolerance (for ‘about’) at neither the C/P redelivery price, nor the purchase price paid by Charterers but at the market one (in the event, higher than both). https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/ocm-courage-shipping monthly 0.5 2022-04-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - OCM Maritime Nile LLC &amp; Anor v Courage Shipping Co Ltd &amp; Ors [2022] EWHC 452 – 04 March 2022(Jacobs J) The Claimant Owners of 2 demise (Barecon 2001) chartered vessels notified “Events of Default and Termination” when the individual beneficially owning the Defendant charterers was declared by the U.S. a “Special Designated Global Terrorist”. The Court dismissed Charterers’ challenge to Owners’ rights to termination and repossession, finding that (i) under the C/Ps neither step required further notices, both were justified (ii) a thwarted purchase option did not constitute an unenforceable “penalty” and (iii) whilst equitable relief from forfeiture might apply to a demise with purchase option, it was inappropriate here due to Charterers’ misconduct (including misleading the Court). https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/quadra-v-xl monthly 0.5 2022-03-25 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Quadra Commodities SA v XL Insurance Company SE &amp; Ors [2022] EWHC 431 – 4 March 2022 (The Hon Mr J Butcher) Quadra, having lost paid-for goods in the “Agroinvestgroup Fraud”, sought reimbursement under their Cargo Policy covering “declared shipments….storage operations”. Underwriters declined, arguing that there was no proof of lost goods nor any insurable interest. The Court dismissed Quadra’s argument that the Policy covered the entire “adventure” and agreed that it was restricted to goods which had existed. But it accepted Quadra’s evidence in this regard and as Quadra had paid the price and had a right to immediate possession of the goods, it had an insurable interest and a right to an indemnity. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-10-22 monthly 0.5 2022-03-17 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 10/22 Owners appealed a Chinese court’s judgment holding them liable for cargo (heat) damage under a B/L, but then settled with cargo interests and sought an indemnity under the ICA. Dismissing Charterers’ arguments, the Tribunal held that even though the damage arguably arose post-discharge, the allegation related to carriage, making it a qualifying “Cargo Claim”; it was not improperly settled and thus met the threshold. However, the damage could not be attributed to loading or handling so 8(d) rather than 8(b) applied, resulting in a 50/50 apportionment, which was not displaced by any “act or neglect”. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-jfr6g monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - MUR Shipping BV v RTI Ltd [2022] EWHC 467 – 3 March 2022 (Jacobs J) When US sanctions applied to Charterers, Owners invoked the force majeure clause of the COA. Charterers started arbitration and the Tribunal found that Owners’ refusal to accept payment in € instead of $ was a failure to exercise “reasonable endeavours” specified for reliance on the force majeure clause. The Court overruled the Tribunal, finding that the “drastic impact of sanctions” would not be limited to the payment aspect but involve further “penalties” for continuing to perform a contract with a sanctioned party. Those problems would not have been overcome by payment in €, so the “reasonable endeavours” provision did not oblige Owners to accept non-contractual performance and Owners were not precluded from reliance on the clause. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sk-shipping-v-capital-vlcc monthly 0.5 2022-03-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - SK Shipping Europe Ltd v Capital VLCC 3 Corp [2022] EWCA Civ 231 – 25 February 2022 (Males LJ, Phillips LJ, Carr LJ) Owners made pre-contractual speed/consumption representations, which were included in the t/c warranties, save as for the statement “above…is based on..last 3 voys”. In addition to deducting for over-consumption, Charterers alleged misrepresentation, then fixed the Vessel for a considerable voyage (UK-Malaysia) before purporting to rescind/terminate the t/c. The CA, upholding the decision below, held there was no misrepresentation; statements of past performance were not representations of future performance, nor had they induced the contract. Further, despite Charterers reserving their rights, ordering the Vessel on that long voyage had affirmed the contract. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-9-22 monthly 0.5 2022-02-25 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 9/22 An amended NYPE provided for holds to be ready to the satisfaction of Charterers’ nominated surveyor, failing which off-hire from failure to passing. The parties agreed, by email, to a “pre-inspection” before the official “final inspection…alongside”. Following holds’ failure at the pre-inspection, Charterers claimed off-hire. The Tribunal found that (i) “pre-inspection” here meant the parties considered it a ‘trial run’ to protect them from any impact of the official inspection (ii) there was a representation in the emails that the CP off-hire regime would be unaffected by the pre-inspection. Therefore, the Vessel was off hire only from failure at the official inspection. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-7-22 monthly 0.5 2022-02-17 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 7/22 X supplied Owners with bunkers which had been purchased from its subsidiary Y under a sale contract. Y in turn had bought those bunkers from the Supplier who, fearing Y’s failure to pay, obtained payment from Owners directly. Owners subsequently resisted X’s claim for payment of the price and pleaded “failure of consideration” as the sale contract between X and Y limited consumption to X’s own vessel prior to payment. The Tribunal found that the remittance to the Supplier did not release Owners from their payment obligation to X nor did they have any right to set-off. Owners’ defence of failure of consideration also failed as the definition of “Buyer” in the sale contract included the “vessel supplied”, thus Owners had acquired the right to use the bunkers. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/nautical-v-evergreen monthly 0.5 2022-02-10 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Nautical Challenge Ltd v Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd [2022] EWHC 206 – 8 February 2022 (Teare J) Overturning the decisions of the courts below, the SC held the crossing rule (vessel with the other on her starboard side gives way) was applicable to the Alexandra I while approaching channel/awaiting pilot and sent the matter back to the High Court for collision damage to be re-apportioned. It found that Alexandra I had failed to give way. However, the consequences of the failure were avoidable had it not been for the Ever Smart’s own “gross” fault of having no lookout, despite warning by pilot, and breach of the narrow channel rule. Damage was apportioned 70:30 in favour of Alexandra I. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/dhl-v-gemeni monthly 0.5 2022-02-02 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - DHL Project &amp; Chartering Ltd v Gemini Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd [2022] EWHC 181 – 31 January 2022 (Jacobs J) A recap of a voyage fixture, containing an English law/ London arbitration clause, was expressed to be “subject shipper/ receivers approval….”. Before the “subject” was lifted, Charterers declined to proceed as the required “Rightship” approval was missing. Setting aside the Award of the Tribunal (upholding a concluded C/P and finding Charterers in repudiatory breach of it), the Court found that in the absence of the lifted subject – a precondition – there was no contract, no severable arbitration clause, and therefore no jurisdiction on the Tribunal’s part to rule on Charterers’ liability. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-4-22 monthly 0.5 2022-01-26 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 4/22 Pilots in China refused Master’s request to have their temperatures re-checked, and standoff ensued which was only resolved more than a week later. Time Charterers (NYPE) claimed off-hire either due to “default of officers or crew” or for the crew’s refusal to do their duties, or alternatively, Owners were in breach for failing to follow Charterers’ orders. The Tribunal held there was no “default or officers or crew” nor had the crew refused their duties by implementing company policy. However, by unilaterally imposing conditions on the pilots, Owners had failed to follow Charterers’ legitimate “orders and directions”. Charterers were awarded hire and bunkers for time lost as damages. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/ocm-singapore-othrs monthly 0.5 2022-01-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - OCM Singapore Njord Holdings Hardrada PTE Ltd &amp; Ors, Re [2022] EWHC 57 – 11 January 2022 (His Honour Judge Mark Pelling QC) The Claimant obtained summary Judgment on its claim against the Defendant issuer of LOIs enabling delivery without B/Ls. The Defendant had sought to amend its admissions (that the LOIs had been engaged) claiming the LOIs had been executed without authority. However, its application was dismissed by the Court who found that it had failed to offer evidence that only the directors were authorised to sign, and to show it had a realistically arguable case of lack of authority. In any case, the Court accepted that any unauthorised action would have been ratified by the Defendant seeking and obtaining delivery on the basis of the LOIs. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-1-22 monthly 0.5 2022-01-12 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 1/22 Time Charterers relied on vessel underperformance and withheld final hire. Owners claimed that the deduction was not made in good faith or on reasonable grounds. The Tribunal dismissed Charterers' reliance on a weather routing report, and held Charterers had failed to address the question of good faith, to substantiate their off-hire claim, and to address Owners’ assertion there was no speed/consumption warranty (the fixture containing the words “all details about/in good faith”). Owners were entitled to payment. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/navig8-v-aeturnum monthly 0.5 2022-01-07 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc v Aeturnum Energy International Pte Ltd (Consequential Matters) [2021] EWHC 3435 – 20 December 2021 (Christopher Hancock QC) Time Charterers Navig8 sought costs on an indemnity basis, together with interest on damages awarded, arguing Voyage Charterers Aeturnum’s abrupt disengagement from the proceedings and their failure to comply with an interim injunction (to replace Navig8’s guarantee securing release of the arrested vessel) were “out of the norm”, and resulted in lengthier and costlier proceedings. The Court held indemnity costs were justifiable, and that Aeternum’s disengagement part way through had undoubtedly increased costs. Interest was awarded with the appropriate rate held to be the three-month USD LIBOR plus uplift of 2.5% compounded at three-monthly rests. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jaldhi-mideast-dmcc-v-al-ghurair-resources-llc-2023-ewhc-1889-g46ts-65gjw-w3c9h-hwxxs-jn96a monthly 0.5 2023-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc v Aeturnum Energy International Pte Ltd (Consequential Matters) [2021] EWHC 3435 – 20 December 2021 (Christopher Hancock QC) Time Charterers Navig8 sought costs on an indemnity basis, together with interest on damages awarded, arguing Voyage Charterers Aeturnum’s abrupt disengagement from the proceedings and their failure to comply with an interim injunction (to replace Navig8’s guarantee securing release of the arrested vessel) were “out of the norm”, and resulted in lengthier and costlier proceedings. The Court held indemnity costs were justifiable, and that Aeternum’s disengagement part way through had undoubtedly increased costs. Interest was awarded with the appropriate rate held to be the three-month USD LIBOR plus uplift of 2.5% compounded at three-monthly rests. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/agronefteprodukt-v-ameropa monthly 0.5 2021-12-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - LLC Agronefteprodukt v Ameropa AG [2021] EWHC 3474 – 21 December 2021 (Sir William Blair) The Defendant Sellers sent a single Notice of Arbitration, for disputes arising from two separate FOB contracts containing identical arbitration clauses (GAFTA Rule 125), in which Sellers also questioned if the Claimant Buyers would “accept the two contracts/disputes be adjudicated under a single arbitration”. The Buyers subsequently challenged GAFTA’s award for lack of jurisdiction, disputing the single Notice was valid commencement of two arbitrations. The Court held it was because the Notice identified both disputes, s.14 AA should be interpreted “broadly and flexibly” with substance over form, and a reasonable reading of Sellers’ question showed an intention to commence both. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/splitt-v-saga monthly 0.5 2021-12-23 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Splitt Chartering APS, RTE Réseau de Transport d'Electricité &amp; Ors v Saga Shipholding Norway AS &amp; Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 1880 – 15 December 2021 The Respondent Receivers of cargo on board the unmanned Stema Barge II sought to limit their liability to RTE, owners of an underwater cable, damaged when the barge dragged anchor during a storm off Dover. The Receivers relied on their personnel’s operation of the barge’s machinery as rendering them “manager or operator”, entitling them to limit under Art.1(2) of the Limitation Convention. Reversing Teare J, the CA held the term “operator” must “entail more than mere operation of machinery” or provision of crew and a higher level of operation involving “management or control” was required for Receivers to avail themselves of the limitation. The appeal was allowed. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/tenke-v-katanga monthly 0.5 2021-12-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Tenke Fungurume Mining SA v Katanga Contracting Services SAS [2021] EWHC 3301 – 7 December 2021 (Moulder J DBE) The Claimant, a mine operator in the DRC, challenged the ICC Tribunal’s award under s.68 claiming serious irregularity by reason of, inter alia, failure to adjourn for a site visit and/or illness of their lead counsel (both linked to Covid 19), and the award of 9% interest compounded monthly. The appeal was dismissed. The Claimant had a highly experienced legal team, had 4½ weeks to replace counsel, and, although, experts differed on the necessity of a site visit, the Tribunal had correctly exercised its discretion. Interest was set at the Defendant’s borrowing cost, and the Claimant failed to show that cross-examination of the Defendant’s CFO would have resulted in a different outcome. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/herculito-v-gunvor monthly 0.5 2021-12-08 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Herculito Maritime Ltd &amp; Ors v Gunvor International BV &amp; Ors "POLAR" [2021] EWCA Civ 1828 – 1 December 2021 (Jackson LJ, Males LJ, Sir Patrick Elias) The M.T. “Polar” laden with cargo pursuant to a voyage charter, was seized by pirates in the Gulf of Aden until a ransom was paid on behalf of Owners. The C/P, which was incorporated into the B/Ls, contained a “Gulf of Aden” clause making charterers liable for additional war risk premiums (‘awrp’). Resisting Owners’ claim for GA contribution, the defendant Cargo Interests argued that the effect of the “Gulf of Aden” Clause on the B/L was that Owners could look only to their insurers and not Cargo Interests for recovery of the ransom. The CA upheld the High Court, ruling that although the clause was incorporated into the B/Ls for other purposes, it did not make Cargo Interests liable for awrp and could not therefore have the effect of contended for, so as to excuse them from GA contribution. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/navig8vaeturnum monthly 0.5 2021-12-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc v Aeturnum Energy International PTE Ltd [2021] EWHC 3132 – 23 November 2021 (Christopher Hancock QC) Cargo was delivered without B/Ls, against LOIs from Voyage Charterers Aeturnum and Time Charterers Navig8. ING bank, claiming to be holders, arrested the Vessel and sought damages of USD8.5m from head owners. Aeturnum failed to take steps and Navig8 placed security to release the Vessel. The Court held that cargo was delivered in accordance with Aeturnum’s instructions, engaging their LOI to Navig8, which was breached (alleged impecuniosity being neither made out nor an excuse). It ordered specific performance (requiring Navig8’s security to be replaced) and damages for Navig8’s loss of use during arrest, Navig8’s further losses being stood over pending ING’s judgment in Singapore. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/eternal-bliss monthly 0.5 2021-11-24 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - K Line PTE Ltd v Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd ("Eternal Bliss") [2021] EWCA Civ 1712 – 18 November 2021 (Sir Geoffrey Vos, Newey LJ, Males LJ) Owners claimed that Charterers’ failure to discharge within laytime, gave rise not only to demurrage but also a cargo deterioration claim against Owners by Receivers. The CA, reversing Baker J’s decision, held that demurrage was Owners’ sole remedy – it “liquidates the whole of the damages arising from… failing to complete cargo operations within the laytime”. Breach of a separate obligation was required to claim additional damages for delay and as Owners failed to plead it, recovery of such damages was precluded. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/maersk-v-mercuria monthly 0.5 2021-11-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Maersk A/S v Mercuria energy Trading SA [2021] EWHC 2856 – 11 October 2021 (His Honour Judge Pelling QC) When their cargo of copper was replaced by cobblestones, Mercuria commenced proceedings in Turkey against carrier Maersk, who, 5 weeks later, sought an anti-suit injunction (‘ASI’) to enforce the B/Ls’ exclusive English jurisdiction clause. Mercuria argued that Maersk had deliberately delayed until the expiry of the B/Ls’ time bar - so an ASI would cause prejudice as English proceedings would be fatally flawed. The Court nevertheless granted the ASI: the time bar was usual, nothing had prevented Mercuria commencing English protective proceedings or required Maersk to seek the ASI any earlier.. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/cmacgm-libra monthly 0.5 2021-11-10 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Alize 1954 &amp; Anor v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG &amp; Ors [2021] UKSC 51 – 10 November 2021 (Reed LJ, Briggs LJ, Arden LJ, Hamblen LJ, Leggatt LJ) Owners of CMA CGM Libra, grounded after straying from a buoyed fairway, appealed a ruling that their (causative) failure to update charts to show “numerous depths less than charted” rendered the vessel unseaworthy (Art. III r.1 Hague Rules). Dismissing the appeal, the SC held that seaworthiness was not confined to physical defects, nor were seaworthiness and navigational matters distinct categories. Negligent navigation, here by not updating charts, caused the unseaworthiness, to which Art IV r.2 was no defence, and Owners were under a non-delegable duty to make the vessel seaworthy. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/airfinance-leasing-v-saudi monthly 0.5 2021-11-04 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Various Airfinance Leasing Companies &amp; Anor v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation [2021] EWHC 2904 – 1 November 2021 (Peter MacDonald Eggers QC) In a dispute over rent escalation provisions, Aircraft Lessors sought an order for disclosure of data held on mobile phones of the Saudi Arabian Lessee’s employees. The employer’s right to possession/ access to the phones, pursuant to Saudi law, could not be made out, nor (c.f. English law) could such right be presumed. Therefore, the necessary “control” element for an order under the Disclosure Pilot Scheme (PD51U) was absent, and the Court had no authority under CPR to order exercise of “best endeavours” to obtain documents not within a respondent’s control. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/pa-v-od monthly 0.5 2021-10-28 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - M/V Pacific Pearl Co. Ltd v Osios David Shipping Inc. [2021] EWHC 2808 – 21 October 2021 (Sir Nigel Teare) The Panamax Alexander (“PA”), bound for Iran, struck the Osios David (“OD”) and a Collision Jurisdiction Agreement on the ASG2 form (the ‘CJA’) was agreed, requiring security “reasonably satisfactory to the other”. OD refused PA’s Club LOU tendered, on the grounds that risk of non-payment under its sanction clause would “effectively render the LOU useless”. Alleging that the refusal was a breach of the CJA, PA sought as damages the cost of the alternative security provided. Although finding that, given the Iranian nexus, inclusion of the tendered clause was reasonable, the Court held that on a true construction, the CJA did not oblige OD to accept that security (it remaining the recipient’s choice to accept an LOU or arrest) and PA’s claim failed. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/river-countess-v-msc-cruise monthly 0.5 2021-10-21 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - River Countess BV &amp; Ors v MSC Cruise Management (UK) Ltd [2021] EWHC 2652 – 4 October 2021 (Baker J) After MSC Opera ran into River Countess in Venice, Demise Charterers (MSC) accepted responsibility, conceding that Italian law governed recoverability. However, they challenged both title to sue of River Countess’ Charterers and recoverability of their pure economic losses. Relying on Italian law experts, the Court held that Charterers had (in contrast to English law) title to sue in tort and that their net loss of revenue together with ex gratia refunds and payments to passengers were recoverable (subject to proof of causation, unavailability of a substitute vessel and reasonable mitigation of damage to brand/goodwill).. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/nwa-v-nvf monthly 0.5 2021-10-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - NWA &amp; Anor v NVF &amp; Ors [2021] EWHC 2666 – 8 October 2021 (The Honourable Calver J) An arbitration agreement provided that the parties were to first seek settlement by mediation. The claimants simultaneously commenced arbitration and sought a stay pending mediation. The respondents failed to engage, later arguing that the claimants’ failure first to mediate deprived the tribunal of jurisdiction to determine the (now time-barred) claim. The Court, dismissing the respondents’ s.67 challenge to the tribunal’s jurisdiction award, found the arbitration was validly commenced, with the mediation requirement being merely a procedural condition. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-20-21 monthly 0.5 2024-09-11 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 20/21 Owners disputed Charterers’ renomination of one of the two discharge ports qualifying for additional freight, arguing that the first nomination was final. Charterers contended that changes were reasonable and foreseeable as ports were declarable “10 DAYS PRIOR VSL PASSING SINGAPORE” and that Owners were not entitled to extra freight due to failure of consideration (as they failed to perform the contractually nominated voyage). The Tribunal found no provisions in the cp which (i) authorised renomination – thus the first nomination was held final – or (ii) obliged Owners to relinquish the extra freight in case of failure to perform the nominated voyage. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/euronav-v-repsol-trading monthly 0.5 2021-09-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Euronav NV v Repsol Trading SA (mt MARIA) [2021] EWHC 2565 – 24 September 2021 (The Honourable Henshaw J) Owners’ USD500,000 demurrage claim under a cp in Shellvoy 6 form was time barred pursuant to Clause 15(3) providing for notification “within [here 30] days after completion of discharge”. Discharge had completed late Christmas Eve local time (PST) in California, already Christmas Day in Europe (CET or GMT). Owners’ notice had been served within 30 days only of the latter, which Owners argued was the most closely connected time zone, being that of sender (Owners, Belgium), recipient (Charterers, Spain) or the law of the CP (England). The Court disagreed, finding that the relevant event was completion of discharge, the time of which is determined according to the discharge place time zone. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/lakatamia-v-nobu-su monthly 0.5 2021-09-23 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su [2021] EWCA Civ 1355 – 15 September 2021 (Arnold LJ, Carr LJ) The CA dismissed the appeal of a serial contemnor – with an unsatisfied judgment debt of more than USD70m – against a two-year custodial sentence. The appellant claimed that the judge had adopted a starting point in excess of the statutory maximum by commenting that his behaviour "merited longer than 24 months". The CA held that there was no absolute rule requiring credit for the Appellant’s admissions of contempt, and the judge was entitled to find them “meaningless” and “lip service” only. Further, the prohibition on the Appellant from leaving the jurisdiction did not amount to mitigation, but rather compliance with an earlier injunction. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/the-luna-v-philips-66-international monthly 0.5 2021-09-17 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - The “LUNA” v Philips 66 International Trading Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 84 – 20 August 2021 B/Ls held by unpaid bunker Sellers, Phillips 66 (following insolvency of Buyers (OW)), did not give them rights to delivery of the cargo (then in the Appellants' bunker barges, which they had arrested). The Singapore CA held that the B/Ls were neither contracts of carriage nor documents of title, being atypical, in that (i) no specific discharge port (ii) deliveries to multiple ocean-going vessels and (iii) Phillips 66 had assumed the risk of non-payment (by giving a credit period and excluding reference to the B/Ls in the sales contracts). https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/vtb-commodities-v-jsc-antipinsky monthly 0.5 2021-09-09 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - VTB Commodities Trading DAC -v- JSC Antipinsky Refinery &amp; Ors [2021] EWHC 1758 – 4 August 2021 (Clare Ambrose sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) In an ownership dispute, VTB (against the usual Undertaking) had obtained an injunction against a refinery in Russia for delivery of a cargo. Petraco, claiming title, challenged the injunction, following which the cargo was sold and proceeds paid into Court, which ordered an expedited trial as to ownership/ rights. In that action, Petraco applied to enforce VTB’s Undertaking in damages and VTB sought to join third parties related to the refinery, pursuant to CPR Pt. 20. The Court ruled that VTB remained in the position of claimant and the Court had no jurisdiction to order the joining of third parties under Pt.20. VTB would have to pursue those claims in Russia. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-19-21 monthly 0.5 2021-09-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 19/21 Under an amended NYPE 1981, Owners claimed damages for a shortfall in redelivery bunkers, based on the redelivery place price and making just a 2% allowance for ‘about’ (as Charterers had ample warning and opportunity to replenish). Charterers contended that the Vessel had insufficient tank capacity for stemming at their chosen place, and that Owners had not in fact replenished at the redelivery place. The Tribunal found the usual 5% allowance appropriate but otherwise dismissed Charterers’ arguments: there was no warranty of tank capacity and the redelivery port price – not the C/P one – applied to damages, irrespective of where replenishment happened. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/ai-giorgis-oil-trading-ltd-v-ag-shipping-energy-pte-ltd-re-mt-marquessa-2021-ewhc-2319 monthly 0.5 2021-08-31 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - AI Giorgis Oil Trading Ltd v AG Shipping &amp; Energy PTE Ltd RE: M.T. Marquessa [2021] EWHC 2319 – 17 August 2021 (The Honourable Henshaw J) The Defendant Charterers consistently failed to pay or pay on time. The Claimant Owners, relying on the amended Shelltime 4 c/p, suspended performance, whilst claiming hire. When the 6th hire went unpaid, leaving some USD3.7m outstanding, Owners accepted Charterers’ conduct as a repudiation or renunciation, and elected to terminate the c/p and claim damages. The Court dismissed Charterers’ claim for wrongful termination, and held Owners were within their rights to suspend performance having regard purely to their own interests. Charterers’ consistent failure to pay on time had deprived Owners of “substantially the whole benefit” of the c/p and provided Owners with reasonable grounds for believing they would not receive them in the future. Charterers were held to be in both repudiatory and renunciatory breach, and summary judgment was granted. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/space-shipping-ltd-v-st-shipping-and-transport-pte-ltd monthly 0.5 2021-08-20 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - SPACE SHIPPING LTD v ST SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT PTE LTD [2021] EWHC 2288 (Comm) (Sir Nigel Teare sitting as a judge of the High Court) The Claimants (disponent owners) let the Vessel on 8 months t/c to the Defendants, who ordered her to Venezuela to load a cargo not authorised for export. Following a resulting detention of almost 3 years, the Vessel was redelivered by the Claimants to head owners, who having declared a CTL, sold her for scrap. Some USD24m. for loss of earnings and other items (based on the t/c express indemnity and/or breach of the non-exposure to seizure clause) was awarded to the Claimants in a series of arbitration awards, the last of which deducted USD1.4m. for their saved dry-docking costs. The Court dismissed the Claimants’ challenge to this ‘saving’, confirming (i) no co-extensive dry-docking liability to head owners (ii) sufficient connection between t/c breach and saving and (iii) no reason why set-off could not be made against an express indemnity claim. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/falcon-trident-shipping-ltd-v-levant-shipping-ltd monthly 0.5 2021-08-12 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Falcon Trident Shipping Ltd v Levant Shipping Ltd [2021] EWHC 2204 (Comm) – 4 August 2021 (Clare Ambrose sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) London jurisdiction having been agreed by the two owners following a collision in India, liability was admitted and quantum settled by an accepted pre-action ‘Part 36’ offer, appending a more detailed Settlement Agreement. In addition to its London lawyers’ and Club costs (comprised in the ‘Part 36’), the Claimant (in costs proceedings) sought additional fees of Indian agents, lawyers and P&I Correspondents and those of its H&M insurers’ Italian lawyers. The Court found that whilst these items might have been open for recovery under the ‘Part 36’ terms, they were in fact covered by the more detailed Settlement Agreement, which superseded the ‘Part 36’ terms. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/shanghai-shipyard-co-ltd-v-reignwood-international-investment-group-company-ltd-2021 monthly 0.5 2021-07-29 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Shanghai Shipyard Co. Ltd. v Reignwood International Investment (Group) Company Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1147 – 23 July (Sir Geoffrey Vos, Baker LJ, Popplewell LJ) A Shipbuilding contract guarantee in respect of the (USD170m) final instalment for a USD200m drillship, given “absolutely and unconditionally” and “not merely as…surety” provided for payment “upon receipt…of…first written demand….” by the Builder. But in the event of a dispute over Buyer’s liability to pay, submitted to arbitration, the Guarantor was entitled to withhold payment pending the award. The CA, overturning the High Court judgment, ruled that this was a ‘demand’ guarantee (without reference to Buyer’s underlying liability) not merely a ‘see to it’ one and that the proviso operated only where the underlying liability arbitration had been commenced prior to the guarantee demand. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/lakatamia-shipping-co-ltd-v-nobu-su-others monthly 0.5 2021-07-23 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd. v Nobu Su &amp; Others [2021] EWHC 1907 – 7 July 2021 (The Honourable Bryan J) Two Monegasque villas and a private jet were sold in breach of a worldwide Freezing Order against Mr Su’s assets. The Claimant thus brought claims for unlawful means conspiracy and violation of rights in the judgment debt (‘Marex tort’) against the Defendant recipients of the sales proceeds, including Mr. Su’s mother and entities in her control. The Court found her to be untruthful, “up to her neck” in conspiracy, and that the Defendants had combined to evade the Order, rendering enforcement more difficult, thus constituting an unlawful means conspiracy. The ‘Marex tort’ was also satisfied as, knowing of the judgment against Mr Su and the Claimant’s rights, the Defendants had procured, induced and/or facilitated transfer of the sales proceeds. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/betamax-ltd-v-state-trading-corporation-mauritius monthly 0.5 2021-07-08 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Betamax Ltd v State Trading Corporation (Mauritius) [2021] UKPC 14 – 14 June 2021 (Hodge J, Arden J, Leggatt J, Burrows J, Thomas J) The Respondent Charterers, a trading arm of the Government of Mauritius, repudiated a 15-year COA. The arbitrator dismissed Charterer’s argument that the COA was unlawful, due to lack of required approval by the Central Procurement Board, and awarded some USD115m. to the Appellant owner. The Supreme Court of Mauritius (SCM) held that the COA, being unapproved, was in contravention of public procurement legislation, and set the award aside as it conflicted with public policy. The Privy Council, on appeal, held that, whilst the SCM was empowered to determine whether an award conflicted with public policy, this power did not permit it to review the legality of the COA, which turned on statutory interpretation, and gave rise to no issues of public policy. The appeal was allowed, and the award final and enforceable. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/eastern-pacific-chartering-inc-v-pola-maritime-ltd-2021-ewhc-1707 monthly 0.5 2021-07-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Eastern Pacific Chartering Inc v Pola Maritime Ltd [2021] EWHC 1707 – 28 June 2021 (Patricia Robertson QC) The Claimant Owners brought High Court proceedings against the Defendant Charterers, pursuant to the C/P exclusive jurisdiction clause, for unpaid hire. The Claimants had earlier arrested the POLA DEVORA, at Gibraltar, as security for their claim, in the mistaken belief that she was owned, rather than chartered by, the Defendants, who now sought to counterclaim tortious damages for wrongful arrest. The Court held that as the arrest was in reliance on the Claimants’ C/P rights, it fell within “any dispute arising out of or in connection with” the C/P conferring jurisdiction on the High Court, and allowing it to dismiss the Claimants’ challenge. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sta-v-ofy-2021-ewhc-1574-8-june-2021-butcher-j monthly 0.5 2021-06-25 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - STA v OFY [2021] EWHC 1574 – 8 June 2021 (Butcher J) After being condemned to pay some USD130m. for wrongful repudiation of a contract under an arbitral award, the Claimant government, STA, obtained from the Court an extension of the 28-day period for challenge. STA issued another challenge under s.68 after the expiry of the extension and on the same day applied for a retrospective extension of time, relying, inter alia, on the replacement of their Attorney General and their legal representatives. The Court dismissed the application on the bases that i) the delay was significant/substantial (27 days from first extension) with no explanation for it, nor evidence the Defendant/Tribunal contributed to it, ii) lack of prejudice to OFY was not a necessity for refusal, iii) the merits were intrinsically weak, and finally iv) refusal was not unfair, a first extension having already been granted. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/tecoil-shipping-ltd-v-neptune-ehf-others-2021-ewhc-1582 monthly 0.5 2021-06-17 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Tecoil Shipping Ltd v Neptune EHF &amp; Others [2021] EWHC 1582 Following an in rem default judgment against “POSEIDON”, the Defendant insurers rejected the Claimant’s demand under the LOU arguing that judgment was only effective against the res and not binding on owners (now in liquidation). The Claimant then obtained an in personam default judgement and the insurers’ application to set it aside (on the basis that no collision statement of claim had been filed) was dismissed by the Court (which found no such requirement in the absence of acknowledgment of service). Further, the argument that the in rem judgment was not binding was irrelevant, the new proceedings being in personam, in which the Registrar’s in rem decision was conclusive evidence. The insurers should have contested the in rem proceedings but any re-litigation of issues was unlikely to reduce the claim below the LOU amount and would put disproportionate costs on the Claimant. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/septo-trading-inc-v-tintrade-ltd monthly 0.5 2021-06-10 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - Septo Trading Inc v Tintrade Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 718 – 18 May 2021 (Moylan LJ, Males LJ, Phillips LJ) The CA ruled that a fuel oil sale Recap term making the quality inspection certificate binding on both parties, could not “fairly and sensibly be read together” with an incorporated BP term making the certificate binding “for invoicing purposes”. Buyers were therefore precluded from pursuing their quality claim on the following grounds: i) the BP term effectively deprived the Recap term of all effect, ii) a regime in which a quality certificate is binding is significantly different from one in which it is not, iii) it was unlikely the parties would wish to detract from this central feature of quality determination, and iv) while possible to agree a non-binding analysis, on a commercially reasonable interpretation this was not what the parties had agreed. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-15/21 monthly 0.5 2021-06-10 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 15/21 Owners’ demurrage claim was based on time running from the first NOR, which was tendered at Southwest Pass when congestion prevented berthing at UBT Davant. The C/P Recap provided that a valid NOR could be given “at or off the port…WWWW” (whether or not at berth, in port, customs cleared or free pratique). However, the Recap also incorporated the UBT (United Bulk Terminal) rules. Charterers relied on the latter, which set out preconditions for a valid NOR including that vessel was at “berth or closest available anchorage”. The Tribunal held that the conflicting terms in the incorporated document (UBT rules) gave way to those in the primary agreement (Recap) and that the Southwest Pass was the nearest anchorage for waiting and vessel was “off the port”. Consequently, the first NOR was valid and Owners’ demurrage claim successful. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-14/21 monthly 0.5 2021-06-02 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 14/21 Voyage Charterers requested the vessel to wait off the discharge port for some 6 days (after NOR tendered). Owners claimed damages for detention and bunker cost – not demurrage – arguing that the request took matters outside the scope of the C/P. The Tribunal held that the request was not “manifestly outside” the contract, laytime ran and Charterers were entitled to all of it. As neither party had put forward a demurrage basis the (SCP) Tribunal made its own assessment. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/bp-oil-international-ltd-v-vega-petroleum-ltd-anor-2021-ewhc-1364-cockerill-j-dbe monthly 0.5 2021-06-02 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622627715567-3JWIKN3KTCL0HU95ATCT/unsplash-image-yCdPU73kGSc.jpg Case Summaries - BP Oil International Ltd v Vega Petroleum Ltd &amp; Anor [2021] EWHC 1364 (COCKERILL J DBE) BP paid some USD17m for crude oil to be delivered FOB in Egypt under contracts with the Defendants (JV partners in the oil field). Deliveries did not take place and BP sought recovery, principally by way of unjust enrichment. In finding in BP’s favour, the Court dismissed various arguments, including that the contracts were merely for rights to lift which, if not taken up, gave rise to no recovery; also time-bar arising out of BP’s GTCs which provided “any claims arising….shall be commenced within 2 years of…date…oil was delivered or, in the case of total loss, should have been delivered”. The Court ruled that there was neither delivery nor total loss so the time bar was inapplicable and in any event, any ambiguity would be resolved in favour of BP. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/holyhead-marina-ltd-v-farrer-ors-emma-2020 monthly 0.5 2021-05-25 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595162651422-IX4E5M3D2YH3S1QALDQ6/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Holyhead Marina Ltd v Farrer &amp; Ors (Emma) [2020] “Further to the destruction of Holyhead Marina by Storm "Emma" in 2018, the claimant lessee in anticipation of claims totalling some f 5M by owners of the damaged craft sought a limitation of its liability to f 550k pursuant to s.191 of the Merchant Shipping Act. The defendant owners (i) denied the claimant's right to limit its liability not being the owner of a "dock" and (ii) alleged that in any event such right would be lost because the loss and damage resulted from a personal act or omission of the claimant committed recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result pursuant to Art.4 of the Limitation Convention. The claimant was successful in striking out item (i) in the Defence, as the Court held that the pontoons forming the Marina may be described as "landing places", "jetties" or "stages" thus falling within the extended statutory definition of "dock". Despite finding it improbable that the requisite "actual knowledge" could be established because this demands a high hurdle, the Court did not strike out (ii) prior to trial as it had "just a real prospect of success".” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 15th July 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/fimbank-plc-v-kch-shipping-co-ltd-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595162490640-MXJKCQ3QCD8DVH6T6W4Q/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Fimbank Plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd [2020] “The claimant bank, holder of the b/Is, applied under s.12 of the Arbitration Act to extend the 1 year Hague/Hague Visby Rules time for commencing suit (here arbitration) for misdelivery against the disponent owner carrier, KCH. The bank had started proceedings against the registered owner ignoring the bareboat c/p. The Court in its discretion rejected the application as no requirement of s.12 was satisfied: (i) a simple negligent omission (here the bank's solicitors wrongful identification of the carrier — albeit reinforced by KCH's misleading correspondence) could not be outside the reasonable contemplation of the parties; (ii) KCH's conduct did not amount to heavy fault and did not make it unjust to decline to extend as a considerable portion of the causative burden lay with the bank's solicitors who failed to act skilfully.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 08th July 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/p-v-q-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595162216870-F2CJ7FA7V8BHNA7XTBYS/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - P v Q [2020] “After the failure of P's claim against Q for damages for breach of a contract of shipment of natural organic juice due to Q's supply of alleged falsified and defective product. P challenged the arbitration which stated that A) 'The facts upon which P relies os to the alleged deliberate dilution of the juice were known to Pin late 2011 or at the latest by March 2012" 6) more than 7 years before P first suggested that the facts amounted to deliberate deceit". P accepted A) but submitted that 8) would cause "substantial injustice" as it would prevent amending its case to plead the tort of deceit. The Court dismissed P's application as no breach of s. 33 of the Act or serious irregularity was proven and the challenge concerned a finding which was "obiter" thus not able to alter the facts or to cause any prejudice to the amendment application.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 01st July 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/the-london-steam-ship-owners-mutual-insurance-association-ltd-v-spain-mit-prestige-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595161991404-AGOKEHJOVUC3WJJ8MNCE/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - The London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v Spain (MIT "PRESTIGE") [2020] “After the Spanish Court condemned in 2019 the Master of the "Prestige", her Owners and Club for serious negligence against the environment Spain sought to register in England a Spanish enforcement order. In light of 2014 CA decision binding Spain to the arbitration agreement in the Club's Rules, the Club applied for an order under s.18 of the Arbitration Act appointing an arbitrator to determine a series of applications including a declaration that Spain is in breach of its obligation not to pursue the claims made in the Spanish proceedings other than by way of London arbitration and a declaration that the arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction, equitable compensation, damages in contract and in lieu of an injunction. The Court held that Spain lacks immunity (other than in respect of the claim for breach of contract) and that an arbitrator is to be appointed pursuant to s.18 in all other Club claims. The Court found that the legal issues raised by Spain about the remedies sought by the Club do not affect the arbitrator's jurisdiction (being germane to the merits) insofar as the Club showed that there was a "good arguable case" that the arbitrator would have the power to make the orders, i.e. that arguments were not obviously wrong such as to make it pointless to appoint one.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 25th June 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/wollongong-coal-ltd-v-pcl-shipping-pte-ltd-the-illawarra-fortune-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595161855365-OWAU1RATM8CM3F5Z4QD5/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Wollongong Coal Ltd v PCL (Shipping) Pte Ltd (The "Illawarra Fortune") [2020] “Subcharterers Gujarat India failed to pay US$ 3.2M freight to Disponent Owners PCL, time charterers of the Vessel Illawarra Fortune. After taking assignment of Owners' rights under the b/Is, PCL tried to recover those sums from Shippers WCL. The bills provided for "freight payable as per Charter Party", i.e. the voyage charter. However, following Wa's failure to pay part of freight costs, the b/Is were marked "Null and Void" and substituted by switch bills identifying New Alloys as shippers. The Court held that because of the novation WCL's liability under the b/Is was extinguished therefore neither Owners nor PCL as their assignee could recover the freight and costs related to the voyage.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 17th June 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/dvb-bank-se-v-vega-marine-ltd-ors-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595161568549-YK6TQ5B4FKQBJ2LVFCS2/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - DVB Bank SE v Vega Marine Ltd &amp; Ors [2020] “The Claimant German banks applied for summary judgment to enforce a US$97 M ship finance loan agreement, as amended by later agreements, against the Borrowers, two Liberian companies, and the Guarantor, their Greek beneficial owner. After verifying that the claim was validly served and the Defendants were aware of the proceedings and the application, a hearing took place remotely on 3'6 April but none of the Defendants appeared or was represented. The Claimants' application succeeded against both Borrowers and Guarantor as the Court found that (i) the Defendants had no real prospect of success in defending claims for unchallenged debts "undoubtedly due" and (ii) there was no compelling reason for the claims to be determined at trial. The Court was convinced that a summary judgment might be more readily enforced than a default judgment in other jurisdictions. The Court took the opportunity to end the uncertainty as to enforceability of English judgments in other EU Member states post-Brexit, by ruling that such judgments may be enforced in Greece pursuant to Article 67(2) of the 30.01.20 EU Council Withdrawal Agreement "so long as the proceedings were issued before the end of the transition period".” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 10th June 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/fimbank-plc-v-discover-investment-corp-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595161428123-NUZ3KDL9G9VVJI8R6N9E/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Fimbank Plc v Discover Investment Corp [2020] “The Claimant Bank (claiming to be the holder of the B/L) had obtained an ex parte freezing order over the proceeds of sale of the Defendant Carrier's Vessel, as security for its claim for misdelivery (the cargo was delivered without production of the B/L as directed by Time Charterers, in return for an L01). The Court discharged the freezing order, finding that the Bank had failed to provide full and frank disclosure (in particular of financing arrangements with its customer, Time Charterers), disabling the Court from giving proper scrutiny at the ex parte stage to the Bank's assertion of 'good arguable case' on the merits.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 03rd June 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/splitt-chartering-aps-ors-v-saga-shipholding-norway-as-ors-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595161209055-5QGDDMQ5SFHA00IAXHH7/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Splitt Chartering APS &amp; Ors v Saga Shipholding Norway AS &amp; Ors [2020] “Further to €55 M damage caused to RTE's underwater electricity cable by the anchor of the barge STEMA BARGE II, three related companies, respectively her Owners, Charterers and Operators, claimed to limit their liabilities to £5.5 M based on tonnage. Disputes arose as to Stema UK's qualification as "operator of the ship" and its entitlement to limitation pursuant to the Limitation Convention 1976. in the absence of authority on the meaning of operator or manager and taking into account the difference between conventional merchant ships and dumb barges, the Court was satisfied with the evidence that the limited services (typical of managers) offered by Stema UK were sufficient to make it appropriate to describe it as the "operator" of the barge. The company was therefore entitled to limit its liability.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 27th May 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/daiichi-chuo-kisen-kaisha-v-chubb-seguros-brasil-sa-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595160808742-QDTBXQGQCQG453NB8CLE/200520.jpg Case Summaries - Daiichi Chuo Kisen Kaisha v Chubb Seguros Brasil SA [2020] “The Commercial Court granted an anti-suit injunction against cargo insurers who - in breach of London arbitration - pursued contractual claims for cargo damage and salvage expenses in Brazil against the Vessels managers and her time charterers. The Court rejected the argument that Charterers' application for an injunction was delayed. Equally unsuccessful was the argument that the anti-suit injunction would breach the principle of comity, even though the Brazilian courts were already dealing with Charterers' jurisdictional challenge.” Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 20th May 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-3/20 monthly 0.5 2020-07-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595160662362-HDU9PWBKTV7HCIOBJT05/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 3/20 “The Tribunal held that, notwithstanding expiry of 24 months from delivery of the cargo, Time charterer's iCA claim against Owners was not time barred by paragraph 6 of the iCA. Charterers had informed Owners by various emails of the merchant's intended cargo claim — water damage due to the vessel's crew negligence -despite not being able to substantiate the details required by the paragraph, such as "the contract of carriage, the nature of the claim and the amount claimed". However, the Tribunal found that paragraph 6 simply required a "written notification of the cargo claim" for the validity of the recovery and the obligation of providing details — characterised by the words If possible — did not give rise to the barring sanction. Therefore, while the absence of any written notification would bar the recovery claim, the absence of details in relation to it would be of no effect.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 13th May 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/times-trading-corporation-v-national-bank-of-fujairah-dubai-branch-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595160582959-DOX1H0QVMYC01IYRVWYP/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Times Trading Corporation v National Bank of Fujairah (Dubai Branch) [2020] “Following misdelivery of a coal cargo, B/L holders, NBF, started proceedings in Singapore and subsequently London Arbitration. The carrier, Times, challenged the Arbitration notice alleging wrong addressee and time bar. limes sought an anti-suit injunction on the basis that Singapore proceedings were in breach of the B/L London Arbitration clause. The Court found that the jurisdictional hurdle for a contractual anti-suit injunction was met and that NBF failed to show strong reasons — particularly the prejudice constituted by the time bar —to refuse the relief. However, relying on "discretionary factors", the Court found that this particular injunction required as a matter of "justice" a condition that limes guaranteed not to rely on any time bar in the arbitration.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 06th May 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/trafigura-maritime-logistics-pte-ltd-v-clearlake-shipping-pte-ltd-2020-ewhc-995-27-april-2020-teare-j monthly 0.5 2020-07-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595160387730-LZQZ21KT9SSVIWXBTP45/200429.jpg Case Summaries - Trafigura Maritime Logistics PTE Ltd v Clearlake Shipping PTE Ltd [2020] “The Defendant charterers (and sub-charterers) were ordered by the Court on 24 March to "provide forthwith such bail or other security as may be required to secure ...release" of a vessel arrested in Singapore. They failed to reach agreement as to the guarantee sought by the arresting bank. The Claimant disponent owners now sought an amendment to the order, such as would require security in the form sought by the arresting bank, or payment of the security sum (US$76 M) into the Singapore Court. The Commercial Court found that "as may be required" meant by the court of the place of arrest. However, in the exceptional circumstances in which Covid 19 prevented the Singapore Court ruling promptly, the Judge decided that he had jurisdiction to impose his solution, rejecting the amendment but ordering payment of the US$76 M into the Singapore Court.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 29th April 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/qatar-national-bank-qpsc-v-force-india-the-owners-of-the-yacht-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595159588978-YDZV7D438ENW02ZNKYVB/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Qatar National Bank (QPSC) v Force India, The Owners of the Yacht [2020] “In January the Court ordered sale of the vessel "Force India" in respect of sums secured by a mortgage. Shortly afterwards, despite the advanced state of the sale procedure, the Claimant applied to set aside the sale Order, in light of an agreement with a third party who had committed to repay the loan. The Court held that in the circumstances, the sale was no longer required and reluctantly rescinded the Order, overcoming its concerns for the reputation of the Admiralty Marshal's sales in the market, only because of the "unusual and perhaps exceptional circumstances".” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 22nd April 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-2/20 monthly 0.5 2020-07-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595159382061-F8VYTHIRJW83TD2ZF4OD/200415.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 2/20 “A fixture agreed by an exchange of emails concluded "owise as dean Gencon94 CP ind Cls Paramount...to be amended/ altered as per above main terms agreed...". The Tribunal, ruling on its own jurisdiction, found that the Gencon 94 Arbitration Clause (19(a)) was incorporated in the fixture: there was no established meaning of "main terms" therefore no reason to exclude Gencon provisions which might be regarded as "main° just because not specifically agreed in the main terms recap, regardless of the amount of detail.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 15th April 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/shanghai-shipyard-co-ltd-v-reignwood-international-investment-group-company-limited-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595159027048-LZLWDGSBGDAJCNA3KX98/200408.jpg Case Summaries - Shanghai Shipyard Co Ltd v Reignwood International Investment (Group) Company limited [2020] “Under a shipbuilding contract, the builder started arbitration first against the buyer, claiming US0170m and then its guarantor. Ruling on a preliminary issue as to whether the guarantee was a demand bond or a "see to it" guarantee, the Commercial Court found that on a true construction of the guarantee, there was no room for a presumption that it was a demand bond, therefore it was a "see to it" guarantee — bearing in mind in particular that this was not an undertaking by a financial institution but one given by a parent company.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 08th April 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/trafigura-maritime-logistics-pte-ltd-v-clearlake-shipping-pte-ltd-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-18 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595081932597-R6B78SC7OF0BOCO0TT80/200401.jpg Case Summaries - Trafigura Maritime Logistics PTE Ltd v Clearlake Shipping PTE Ltd [2020] “Following arrest of their Vessel at Singapore on 12 March, in relation to a cargo mis-delivery claim, head owners demanded that time charterers place the security; the Claimant time charterers (alleging that in the interim they had 'lost out on a fixture) now sought an urgent injunction compelling the Defendant voyage charterers to provide the security to obtain the release of the Vessel. The Commercial Court on 26 March granted the injunction, dismissing the Defendants' argument that the loss of the fixture opportunity nullified the urgency, acknowledging instead the volatility of the market for large crude carriers and recognising the pressing need for the provision of security to obtain release of the Vessel.” Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 01st April 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/tricon-energy-ltd-v-mtm-trading-llc-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-18 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595081762955-SYPN438Z32T5IKFJ157Y/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Tricon Energy Ltd v MTM Trading LLC [2020] “An amended Asbatankvoy covered one of two parcels carried for different charterers. Laytime / demurrage was to be pro-rated according to B/L quantities. The CP specified that a demurrage claim required "claim/invoice in writing and all supporting documents... within [90] days after completion of discharge". The SOF incorrectly recorded B/L quantities. The Court allowed an appeal from an arbitration, finding that the B/Ls themselves should have been provided. Owners' claim for US$56,049.36 demurrage was time-barred.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 25th March 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/bank-st-petersburg-pjsc-anor-v-arkhangelsky-anor-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-18 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595081376718-5MN7BO92BRBAYSXEMNB9/200319.jpg Case Summaries - Bank St Petersburg PJSC &amp; Anor v Arkhangelsky &amp; Anor [2020] “Responding to claims totalling some GBP16.Sm under personal guarantees, the Defendants had counterclaimed for conspiracy to raid and seize their assets, contrary to Russian law. Some 22 months after the trial which spanned 6 months, the High Court allowed the claim and dismissed the counterclaim for lack of proof. The CA held that the Judge's requirement that the Defendants establish "the facts to be incapable of innocent explanation" set the bar too high, rendering the judgment unsafe and that a retrial should take place. The delayed judgment, although inexcusably in excess of the unwritten 3 month rule, did not alone render it unsafe.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 19th March 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/alize-1954-another-v-allianz-elementar-versicherung-ag-others-the-cma-cgm-libra-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-17 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595005175647-QDVFW6634PYE8WN5G2WX/200311.jpg Case Summaries - Alize 1954 &amp; Another v Allianz Elementar Versicherung AG &amp; Others (The CMA CGM LIBRA) [2020] “In upholding the decision of the Admiralty Court, the Court of Appeal found that the passage plan is an "attribute" of a vessel which, if defective, can render it unseaworthy. It did so in the present case, defeating the owners' general average contribution claim. The judgment suggests that navigational oversights prior to or at the commencement of a voyage can lead to owners incurring liabilities if such errors eventually cause loss.” Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 11th March 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-1/20 monthly 0.5 2020-07-17 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595005028249-126OX92NO5MQOBML70FM/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 1/20 “Having paid a 2006 cargo claim as ordered by appellate Brazilian Courts in 2017, Owners claimed indemnity from Charterers under Clause 10 of an amended GENCON Form. Charterers argued that by then the claim had become time-barred. The tribunal held by majority that the obligation of Charterers to indemnify Owners against "all consequences or liabilities" meant that time started running from payment of the cargo claim which was the consequence of signing bills more onerous than the terms of the Charterparty.” Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 04th March 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/lg-v-rina-and-another-opinion-of-advocate-general-szpunar-cjeu-case-641/18-14-january-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-17 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595004906013-9BBEXIIQ15RCTEAVUB36/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - LG v Rina and Another — Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar — CJEU Case 641/18 “Following the sinking of the Al Salam Boccacio '98, victims claimed damages in Italy against the classification/ certifying bodies, RINA, who pleaded state immunity on the basis that they were operating on behalf of the Republic of Panama (the vessel's flag state). The Italian Courts sought guidance from the Court of Justice of the EU. In rejecting Rina's argument, the CJEU found that neither the fact that the acts were performed on behalf of/in the interests of a state, nor the possibility of the state's incurring liability, in themselves, bring such acts outside the scope of the ordinary legal rules applicable to relationships between private individuals. Civil actions such as this fall within the meaning of "civil and commercial matters" of Brussels I Regulation, and the Italian Courts could, therefore, hear the case.” Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 26th February 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/taqa-bratani-ltd-ors-v-rockrose-ukcs8-llc-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-17 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595004691898-FITLYQMXIMX2QKBK6ZC2/200219.jpg Case Summaries - Taqa Bratani Ltd &amp; Ors v Rockrose UKCS8 LLC [2020] “The Claimants sought declarations that their termination notices, served on the defendant operators of gas fields, pursuant to joint operating agreements ("JOAs"), were valid and effective. The JOAs contained absolute and unqualified rights of termination. The defendants argued that the rights were subject to implied obligations of good faith and consideration of the best interests of the gas fields. In the context of sophisticated commercial parties and the absence of industry practice, the Court found no reason to qualify the express absolute rights by any such implied terms.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 19th February 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/americas-bulk-transport-ltd-liberia-v-cosco-bulk-carrier-ltd-china-mv-grand-fortune-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-17 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595004455769-2DTDSACOIH5P9J4DYAZJ/image-asset.png Case Summaries - Americas Bulk Transport Ltd (Liberia) v Cosco Bulk Carrier Ltd (China) M.V. Grand Fortune [2020] “COSCO chartered the Vessel to Britannia Bulkers ("Bulkers") in 2007. A recap evidenced a sub charter of the Vessel to ABT in 2008 but was silent as to the disponent owner. COSCO, as assignee of Bulkers, brought claims in arbitration against ABT under the sub-CP. ABT contended that its counterparty was Bulkers' parent, Britannia Bulk, hence there was no arbitration agreement in the sub-CP operable on behalf of Bulkers. The Court preferred material contemporaneous with the Recap (LOUs, payment instructions) over post-contractual evidence (a later draft CP) and upheld the Tribunal's ruling that Bulkers, the only entity entitled to trade the Vessel under the 2007 charter, was the sub-CP counterparty, such that the Tribunal had jurisdiction over COSCO's claim.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 12th February 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/qatar-national-bank-qpsc-v-yacht-force-india-owner-of-the-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-17 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595004143249-NTXU5EMRRTW9QUE0EQQ5/200129.jpg Case Summaries - Qatar National Bank QPSC v Yacht Force India, Owner of the [2020] “To enforce a mortgage on the superyacht "Force India", the Claimant bank commenced in rem proceedings and arrested the Vessel at Southampton. The Owners acknowledged service and defended the claim. A trial of the action was fixed for January 2020. The Owners did not attend and the Court in those circumstances was entitled to and did, strike out the Defence. Nevertheless, the Court required the Claimant bank to prove its claim, given the risk that others having in rem claims against the Vessel might otherwise be prejudiced. In the event the Claimant bank did prove its claim and obtained judgment, following which ancillary orders, such as appraisal and sale, might be made.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 29th January 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/trans-oil-international-sa-v-1-savoy-trading-lp-2-ivan-melnykov-2020 monthly 0.5 2020-07-17 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595003927566-7ZILET7N2ZYLQ5H2JNBK/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Trans-Oil International SA v (1) Savoy Trading LP (2) Ivan Melnykov [2020] “Savoy failed to perform a contract for the sale of wheat to Trans-Oil, who commenced GAFTA arbitration against Savoy and obtained a world-wide freezing order (WWFO) against them. Trans-Oil sought to have the WWFO extended to include Mr Melnykov but the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to do so, Trans-Oil having failed to show that he was a party to the contract, personally liable on it, the real principal, or a 'necessary and proper party' to the arbitration, or that he would dissipate Savoy's assets in the jurisdiction. Trans-Oil also failed to establish that Mr Melnykov was a de facto director/principal of Savoy, such as would allow the Court to add him to the penal notice of the WWFO.” Louise Glover - Christina Voulgaraki E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 22nd January 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/aden-refinery-company-v-gunvor-sa-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-17 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595003658638-B2ESO62UWMLQL26HMEOM/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Aden Refinery Company v Gunvor SA [2019] “Gunvor sold 60,000mt gasoil to ARC, for delivery July 2014, with payment (due before delivery) calculated by reference to a contemporaneous Platts index. The parties agreed to delay delivery to September, but without adjusting the pricing clause. Gunvor invoiced at the July price but ARC paid at the lower September rate. Gunvor delivered a quantity less than 60,000 mt, commensurate with the July price, selling the balance to a third party. Gunvor sought damages arising out of ARC's failure to pay the full price. The Court rejected ARC's arguments that the price index automatically moved with delivery date, or that the contract was so varied, and held that the contract was for "pre-payment" at the July rates in the absence of any clear link to delivery date.” Antonino Cordopatri - Christina Voulgaraki E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 15th January 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/amalie-essberger-tankreederei-gmbh-co-kg-v-marubeni-corporation-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-17 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1595003517173-ULQESC5L0CPCZGGQS1XU/200108.jpg Case Summaries - "Amalie Essberger" Tankreederei GmbH &amp; Co KG v Marubeni Corporation [2019] “An amended Asbatankvoy C/P Clause specified that any claim for demurrage would be waived unless received by Charterers in writing with all supporting documents within 90 days of completion of discharge. The Clause identified supporting documents as: (a) Time logs, (b) NORs, (c) Pumping Logs and (d) Letters of Protests. Whilst (a) and (b) accompanied the (timely) claim, (c) and (d) did not, as already provided (as required by another clause) at an earlier stage. The Court held that the Clause did not contain any express requirement that supporting documents all had to be provided at the same time — or together with the claim. Furthermore, as (c) and (d) were identified by the Clause as supporting documents, Charterers should have been alerted to their status upon first receipt, such that Owners were not obliged to re-submit them. Charterers' application for summary judgment based on a time-bar defence was therefore dismissed.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 08th January 2020 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/mur-shipping-bv-v-louis-dreyfus-company-suisse-sa-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594929530220-05ZGC16DY7CSIGIVPP3T/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Mur Shipping BV v Louis Dreyfus Company Suisse SA [2019] “Under an amended NYPE c/p providing for Charterers' claims to be extinguished unless notified to Owners and accompanied by "all available supporting documents (whether relating to liability or quantum or both)", Charterers' claim was time-barred as a report, issued at Charterers' request but not supplied to Owners until claim submissions were served, fell within the category of "supporting documents" and therefore was required to be presented with the notification as it supported the liability and quantum of the claim. The clause was wide enough to cover documents which were arguably privileged.” Hanna Szerszen E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 31st December 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/james-kemball-ltd-v-k-line-europe-ltd-kawasaki-kishen-kaisa-ltd-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594929449782-BHHMKGF1Y71QFGEQ4XEE/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - James Kemball Ltd v "K" Line (Europe) Ltd &amp; Kawasaki Kishen Kaisa Ltd [2019] “The Court dismissed an application by KKK to set aside JKL's permission to serve out of the jurisdiction proceedings for damages caused by KKK (a worldwide container shipping company) in procuring or inducing a breach by K-Euro (KKK's agent) of its service agreement with JKL. Although KKK's application did not succeed, the Court held that JKL failed to provide full and frank disclosure as to the grounds on which its claim in tort would be presented. In order to mark the gravity of such failure, the Court exercised its discretion by ordering JKL to pay KKK's costs of the application on an indemnity basis.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 24th December 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/alianca-navegacao-e-logistica-ltda-v-ameropa-sa-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-19 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594929360597-8SKSISEQ88264UWPGME3/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Alianca Navegacao E Logistica LTDA v Ameropa SA [2019] “Charterers under an amended Synacomex CP, disputed demurrage, alleging that Owners' delay on the voyage/failure to ventilate the grain cargo/disinfect topsides caused cargo damage and infestation, prolonging discharge. The Court found that Owners were free to and did select a usual and reasonable route but although in breach of warranted speed, there was no specific resulting damage. Conversely the failures to ventilate and disinfect both constituted breaches of Owners' Hague Visby Rules Article Ill r2 duties and caused increased 'crust' and infestation respectively, giving rise to identifiable delays, to the extent of which Charterers were relieved from demurrage liability.” Hanna Szerszen E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 18th December 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/ocean-prefect-shipping-ltd-v-dampskibsselskabet-norden-as-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594929270379-42MPKTNL0PJK0SX98L50/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Ocean Prefect Shipping Ltd v Dampskibsselskabet Norden AS [2019] “The Court refused Owners' application to admit the MAIB (UK investigatory body) report into arbitration proceedings with Charterers, further to the UK-flag vessel grounding in the UAE. Pursuant to the Merchant Shipping Regulations 2012, the only purpose of MAIB investigations is to improve maritime safety (and not to attribute or apportion blame). MAIB reports are therefore inadmissible in any judicial proceedings, unless a court determines that the interest of justice outweigh any prejudice to future accident safety investigation and relations between the UK and foreign states or international organisations. The Court found that in this case there was no reason to depart from the general rule, as maritime safety and international relations are of a greater importance than Owners' commercial interests in recovering their loss.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 11th December 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/tmf-trustee-ltd-ors-v-fire-navigation-inc-ors-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594929136350-0TBHYPFL0OFU6U3YOB94/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - TMF Trustee Ltd &amp; Ors v Fire Navigation Inc &amp; Ors [2019] “Under a loan agreement to fund vessel purchases, Lenders served an Acceleration Notice, following which Borrowers failed to pay the amount sought. Lenders relied upon 'No set-off and 'Event of Default' clauses and sought summary judgment. Borrowers alleged (i) that the Notice was invalid, (ii) placing Lenders in breach, (iii) preventing Borrowers' compliance. For the purposes of their application, Lenders accepted (i) to (iii) but relied solely on the 'No set-off' clause which, they said, stopped any application of the 'prevention principle' relied on by Borrowers. The Court held that that clause could not stop Borrowers from arguing that amounts were never due in the first place, therefore the summary judgment application failed, and Borrowers were free to argue their defence.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 04th December 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/quiana-navigation-sa-v-pacific-gulf-shipping-singapore-pte-ltd-caravos-liberty-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594928983373-LKNCKRZXCPAZPRIQ0SI5/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Quiana Navigation SA v Pacific Gulf Shipping (Singapore) PTE Ltd "Caravos Liberty" [2019] “Under a time-charter, Charterers underpaid the 4th (15- day) hire instalment but paid the 5th and 6th in full. The day after the 6th instalment fell due, Owners served an anti-technicality notice and withdrew the Vessel, relying upon the BIMCO Non Payment of Hire Clause: "If the hire is not received by midnight on the due date....Owners shall notify Charterers [and] If the payment is not received within 72 running hours, Owners may by giving written notice within 12 running hours withdraw the Vessel....". The High Court, on appeal, upheld the Tribunal's finding that the BIMCO clause was not engaged, because it could only be operated for the immediately preceding 15- day instalment (which was paid in full) and not for arrears, rendering Owners' withdrawal a "renunciatory/ repudiatory" breach.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 28th November 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-26/19-2 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594928816008-2F9K732B9PJ02KM8IDO6/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 26/19-2 “Charterers brought an underperformance claim under an amended NYPE form c/p in reliance on a weather bureau report. Clause 77 provided that "evidence of the weather conditions to be taken as reported daily on the noon position report to the Charterers...". The Tribunal found that the weather bureau's approach, which divided the 24-hour period in four 6-hourly readings, was contrary to the c/p performance warranty. A period of less than a full day was insufficient in order to calculate the vessel's performance and in particular unjustly benefitted Charterers as no accurate allowance was made for currents during periods between the six-hourly entries. Therefore, Owners were entitled to a refund of Charterers' deduction from hire.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 20th November 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-26/19 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594928694203-4FIOX5XFIHZWIES89PTW/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 26/19 “Charterers made a deduction from hire on the grounds of an underperformance claim under a cp on a NYPE 1993 form. The Tribunal found that the deduction was unlawful as it constituted a breach of clause 46 of the cp, pursuant to which "Charterers are entitled to deduct from last sufficient hire payments only value of bunkers on redelivery...". Charterers' argument that the clause dealt only with bunkers adjustments but did not preclude equitable set-off of performance claims was rejected. In fact, it was held that the purpose of the clause was to protect Owners from possible iniquitous ad hoc deductions disguised as equitable set off and if Charterers had a performance claim, they should have claimed damages independently.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 13th November 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/navalmar-uk-ltd-v-ergo-versicherung-ag-anor-bsle-sunrise-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594928568316-ENQ923VF9PTUAK4LF2X6/191106.jpg Case Summaries - Navalmar UK Ltd v Ergo Versicherung AG &amp; Anor (BSLE SUNRISE) [2019] “The Commercial Court held that the "actionable fault" defence under Rule D of the York Antwerp Rules is available to the issuer of a General Average guarantee in the standard wording approved by the Association of Average Adjusters and the Institute of London Underwriters. Under this form, the guarantor has the obligation to "... pay any contributions to General Average ... which may hereafter be ascertained to be properly due ...". The Court found that the word "due" means the same as legally owing or payable; but GA does not become owing or payable unless and until a court rules on the merits of a Rule D defence ("properly"). This conclusion was meant to be in accordance with the settled practice and understanding of the shipping industry such that only very clear wording could justify departing from it.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 06th November 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/priyanka-shipping-ltd-v-glory-bulk-carriers-pte-limited-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594928446285-9BUU16EXPP5R4MFGGM4Z/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Priyanka Shipping Ltd v Glory Bulk Carriers PTE Limited [2019] “Following the sale of a Capesize bulk carrier for demolition only and despite their undertaking not to trade her further, buyers continued to trade the vessel sought the lifting of the covenant. Sellers rejected that request (as the purpose of the sale was to reduce oversupply in the market) and sued for compensation, including 'negotiating damages' being a sum of money as might reasonably have been demanded by them in exchange for permitting the continuation of the breach of the covenant. The Commercial Court rejected the claim, holding that the undertaking not to trade was akin to a non-compete obligation which did not fall within the category of cases where 'negotiating damages' were available as a measure of a sellers' loss.” Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 30th October 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-22/19 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594928309787-3KPPKKC8LMLOJGP1GAYI/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 22/19 “A charterparty for the carriage of logs contained a clause, 66, which made the tendering of NOR at loadport conditional on Owners' promise that "...the Vessel's holds will be clean, dry and free of cargo residues...". Upon arrival at loadport the vessel's holds were found to be infested and the authorities ordered fumigation. Although Owners contended that infestation was not contemplated by clause 66, the Tribunal held the NOR invalid as the presence of insects was in any event a breach of the duty under common law regarding the condition of the holds and the vessel was not ready until fumigation had been completed.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 23rd October 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/suez-fortune-investments-ltd-anor-v-talbot-underwriting-ltd-ors-brillante-virtuoso-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594928219265-ZLZBL4ORMO90MSODTEU3/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Suez Fortune Investments Ltd &amp; Anor v Talbot Underwriting Ltd &amp; Ors (BRILLANTE VIRTUOSO) [2019] “Owners and their co-insured Bank claimed on the war risk insurance following the boarding and setting on fire of the Vessel in the Gulf of Aden in 2011. The Court had struck out Owners' claim, for disobedience to a disclosure order. The Bank nonetheless continued, arguing that (even in the event of Owners' wilful default — as contended by insurers) it could rely on the insured perils. The Court found that the Vessel had indeed been scuttled and, as a result, "piracy" was unavailable, as objectively, the event was motivated by attempted fraud on insurers rather than fortuitous theft of the Vessel; "persons acting maliciously" did so in furtherance of the fraudulent plan rather than by spite or ill-will; the same applied to "malicious mischief'; senseless rather than orchestrated damage was required for "vandalism" and an intention to frustrate intended use of property for "sabotage". The Bank's claim therefore failed.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 16th October 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/bilgent-shipping-pte-ltd-anor-v-adm-international-sarl-oldendorff-carriers-gmbh-co-kg-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594928097599-0EX0ZZ7GT5J0ILF6EUUR/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Bilgent Shipping PTE Ltd &amp; Anor v ADM International Sarl &amp; Oldendorff Carriers GmbH &amp; Co KG [2019] “An amended Baltimore Form C Berth Grain CP provided in CI.14 that NOR to load "must be delivered ... between 0800 hours and 1700 hours ..Monday to Friday, between 0800 ... and 1100 ... on Saturday, ....Laytime is to commence 0800 hours the next working day...." and in CI.16 for a right to cancel should NOR "not be delivered as per Clause 14 by...noon on... [10th May]." NOR was tendered at 0704 on Sunday 10 May. On appeal from an arbitration, the Court upheld Charterers' cancellation, holding that NOR could not be served on a Sunday: terms identifying what is a valid NOR have a commercial purpose and to hold that an NOR could be valid for one purpose (laytime) but not another (cancelling) would create uncertainty in the face of the parties' attempt to create certainty.” Hanna Szerszen E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 09th October 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/neocleous-anor-v-rees-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594927999096-B0V0EBWRBISOCQUK780B/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Neocleous &amp; Anor v Rees [2019] “The High Court held that a solicitor's automatic email signature was proof of signature of a disputed settlement, the terms of which were confirmed by email. Even though automatically generated, the signature at the footer could only be present because of a conscious decision to insert the contents, whether in a particular case or more generally in all cases. Furthermore, the recipient had no reason to suppose that the presence of the signature may have been unknown to the sender.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 02nd October 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/bsg-resources-ltd-v-vale-sa-ors-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594927893403-RWO1VY9Q7T2LIXLLYCWI/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - BSG Resources Ltd v Vale SA &amp; Ors [2019] “BSGR challenged an arbitration award against it for US$1.247 billion arising out of a joint venture with Vale exploiting iron ore deposits in Guinea. The Court declined BSGR's application to set aside an order granting Vale permission to enforce the award as a judgment — or to stay the same — on the grounds that there was a presumption that enforcement could proceed notwithstanding the challenge, there was no public policy defence, the challenge (being based solely on arbitrator bias) was not one obviously going to succeed, there was no evidence that if the challenge succeeded Vale would be unable to repay, nor any other concerns militating against enforcement.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 25th September 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-unreported-2 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594886104176-E7ER875NCI32ZZE8ZE1R/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration (unreported) - 2 “Under a time charterparty on amended NYPE 1946 form, the vessel failed the hose test on her arrival to loadport and was placed off hire. Owners claimed hire submitting that the hose test that took place was too stringent and uncontractual, i.e. far in excess of standard practice in the industry. The Tribunal held that it was not possible to conclude that the hose test was not carried out in accordance with the IACS guidelines as there was no reason for the surveyor to do so nor was it credible that the crew should accede to a request to carry out an irregular test without lodging a formal note of protest. The claim therefore failed.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 19th September 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-unreported monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594886009635-8P02NMK0X3HB4DJRWBPC/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration (unreported) “In an SOP time charter arbitration, the Tribunal found that Charterers were correct to rely on the Master's delivery and redelivery bunker figures rather than the vessel's calculated consumption, as the Owners had argued.” George Arghyrakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 12th September 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-16/19 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594885889866-I4QSNASF4YKQ8MP0PICR/190903.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 16/19 “A NOR was held to be valid even though the ship was not in a condition to perform the service required when it was tendered. The Tribunal found that the lack of a second anchor, required for river navigation, was not critical since a substitute tug could be ordered instead. The NOR tendered was therefore valid even though the Owners refused to deploy the tug as they considered it was "too expensive".” George Arghyrakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 03rd September 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/the-yue-you-902-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594885734134-YIEIWQ7U6FFPD1WMA5ID/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - The "Yue You 902" [2019] “In a cargo misdelivery claim, the unpaid claimant bank holding B/Ls as security, defeated the carrier's argument that the bills had become 'spent' by the time the bank acquired possession. Neither the charterer/seller ordering discharge nor the buyer/receiver of the cargo was entitled to delivery under the bills. Such a delivery was not therefore capable of causing bills to be spent ('Erin Schulte' case considered). Nor did the bank's grant of the loan, with knowledge of the delivery without bills, constitute its authorisation or consent to the carrier.” Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 28th August 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/alba-exotic-fruit-sh-pk-v-msc-mediterranean-shipping-company-sa-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594885521236-I4O0D6VU3LKRJ7RR74CP/190821.jpg Case Summaries - Alba Exotic Fruit SH PK v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. [2019] “Just before the 1-year time bar in 2014, Alba commenced cargo claim proceedings against MSC. In 2018, MSC (who had counterclaimed for cargo disposal) applied to strike out the claim because Alba failed to apply for a CMC by the deadline set in the CPR. Despite finding the 4-and-a-half-year delay inordinate and inexcusable, the Court declined to strike out, as serious prejudice had not been caused to MSC, nor had a fair trial been prejudiced. Relevant factors were the absence of intentional delay or wholesale disregard of the CPR. Nevertheless, despite the usual conditions not being satisfied but to reflect Alba's "serious default", the Court ordered it to secure MSC's costs.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 21st August 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/goknur-gida-maddeleri-enerji-imalat-ithalat-ihracat-ticaret-ve-sanati-as-goknur-v-organic-village-ltd-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594885387855-K0G6XZ7RRH14GXUBM5TR/190814.jpg Case Summaries - Goknur Gida Maddeleri Enerji Imalat Ithalat Ihracat Ticaret VE Sanati A.S (Goknur) v Organic Village Ltd [2019] “In 2010 Goknur and OV entered an agreement whereby OV would purchase from Goknur 'not from concentrate' ('NFC') fruit juice for a period of 3 years. The following year, OV claimed that some batches did not comply with the NFC description and sought damages, including for loss of profit, on the basis of both breach of contract and misrepresentation. The Court found that the juice at the time of supply did not meet the 'NFC' requirement, placing Goknur in breach of contract. However, the misrepresentation claim failed, the judge finding that it was an innocent misrepresentation, and remarking that anyway tortious damages would not extend to loss of profit. The loss of profit claim also failed on the contractual basis, the judge finding that unavailability to OV of an alternative source of NFC juice (of particular provenance) for its customers was not within the contemplation of the parties.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 14th August 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/fshc-group-holdings-ltd-v-glas-trust-corporation-ltd-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594885113238-P5CZOCT49UZRBM2XZJ9X/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Fshc Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd [2019] “As part of a complex corporate transaction, the Claimant was to provide an Assignment to the Bank, by way of security. It emerged some years later that it had omitted to do so therefore it issued 2 deeds in favour of the Bank with the effect of replacing the missing security but also imposing additional, onerous obligations on the Claimant. The High Court found that the additional obligations were the result of a common mistake (both subjectively and objectively) and ordered rectification of the deeds. The Bank appealed arguing that the sole test was an objective one, and moreover one going to the legal rather than mere commercial effect of the agreement. The CA disagreed, ruling that a subjective common mistake as to legal consequences was sufficient — and established — although the objective test was also met. Relevant factors in both were that this was not a new agreement, the commercial absurdity of gratuitously taking on additional obligations and the absence of discussion about such a radical modification to the previous arrangements.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 07th August 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/rubicon-vantage-international-pte-v-krisenergy-ltd-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594884506644-9LYX4ZFD3AX8XDUNMV4U/190731.jpg Case Summaries - Rubicon Vantage International Pte v Krisenergy Ltd [2019] “Under a bareboat charter Guarantee, charterers' parent guaranteed, as primary obligors, charterers' performance of and payments under the charter and undertook to pay "any amount(s) demanded up to ...US$3,000,000... on demand notwithstanding any dispute between [owners and charterers]. The Court found that the Guarantor was liable even if the underlying liability (and not just quantum, as argued) was in dispute.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 31st July 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/odyssey-aviation-ltd-v-gfg-737-limited-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594884375731-ZNLLCQPWHB915JPVY2HT/190725+aircraft+sale+deposit.jpg Case Summaries - Odyssey Aviation Ltd V GFG 737 Limited [2019] “The Buyer cancelled an aircraft purchase contract, alleging Seller's breach of warranty of title (the Seller intending to acquire the aircraft with completion funds from the Buyer). In dismissing the Buyer's claim for return of the holding deposit, the Court found that the warranty as to title only applied at the time of delivery, thus the Seller was not obliged to produce title documents prior to that. In cancelling, the Buyer was in repudiatory breach such that its complaint that the Seller failed to have the aircraft at the delivery location must also fail.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 25th July 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-15/19 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594884245102-HYAKPAVGQNA8M3EF9PBR/190717+prolonged+port+stay+tc+clause.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 15/19 “A Prolonged Port Stays clause in a charter on an amended NYPE 1993 form provided for charterers to be responsible for excessive marine growth if established at the long-stay port. The Tribunal held that the clause was to be construed widely so as to encompass cases where hull inspection at the long-stay port was not possible, alternatively a provision would be implied to that effect. Further "excessive marine growth" meant any growth which had a measurable impact on the performance of the vessel. In the present case, the Tribunal held that the impact was measurable as performance improved after hull cleaning.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 17th July 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/ark-shipping-company-llc-v-22-february-2019-silverburn-shipping-lom-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594884058583-SJ1V1B6LX6KWLL201SPP/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Ark Shipping Company LLC v 22 February 2019 Silverburn Shipping (loM) [2019] “In concluding that the Classification clause (9) in a BARECON '89 Charterparty is a condition, the CA (overruling the High Court) found that it is instead an innominate term, for the following reasons of construction and business common sense: it relates merely to classification status; it is not expressed to be a condition nor is it a time clause or a condition precedent leading to significant consequences; further, it was closely bound up with the general obligation to maintain physical condition of the vessel and a trivial breach might well result in disproportionate consequences destructive of a long-term contractual relationship.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 10th July 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/abbotswood-shipping-corporation-v-air-pacific-limited-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594883817153-XANGLX48172BROYMZ7SR/190703+security+for+costs.jpg Case Summaries - Abbotswood Shipping Corporation v Air Pacific Limited [2019] “The High Court decided a Defendant's application that the Liberian corporate Claimant secure its costs in a dispute relating to return of aircraft lease deposits. There was no information whatsoever on the Claimant's financial position (either publicly available or volunteered) and the Defendant had therefore satisfied the test of showing reason to believe that the Claimant would be unable to meet a costs award. However, as the claim and cross-claim were essentially two sides of the same coin (such that the costs incurred in defending the claim would be the same as those incurred in prosecuting the cross-claim) the Court considered it not just to make the order requested.” Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 03rd July 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sveriges-angfartygs-assurans-forening-the-swedish-club-ors-v-connect-shipping-inc-anor-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594819609202-C1FTB54T6M83OIQP0Z0O/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening (The Swedish Club) &amp; Ors v Connect Shipping Inc &amp; Anor [2019] “The Supreme Court confirmed that costs incurred both before and after notice of abandonment may be taken into account in ascertaining whether a vessel is a CTL pursuant to s.60(2)(ii) of the Marine Insurance Act 1996; SCOPIC charges however are not to be taken into account as, by contrast, they are 'unconnected with the damage to the hull or its hypothetical reinstatement.'“ Jake Christophersen E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 26th June 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/cockett-marine-oil-d-mcc-v-ing-bank-nv-anor-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594819506680-SLVPHOTFCFM7V3DG1BR3/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Cockett Marine Oil D MCC v Ing Bank NV &amp; Anor [2019] “The Claimants purchased bunker from OW to supply two vessels in 2014. In respect of each supply, a Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction over disputes by reason of a London arbitration clause in OW's 2013 terms and pursuant to that, held t OW's claim for payment to have been validly assigned to ING Bank. The Claimants sought a re-hearing under s67 of the Arbitration Act. The Court declined to find that the (recently introduced) arbitration clause had not been brought to the Claimants' attention; that there was a course of dealing between the parties excluding the 2013 terms or that they were varied by correspondence. Nor did the Court's s.27 jurisdiction extend to re-hearing the assignment issue.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 19th June 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/woodward-anor-v-phoenix-healthcare-distribution-ltd-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594819333984-PAVESX0Y5E06EQ6U5YVB/190612+time+bar.jpg Case Summaries - Woodward &amp; Anor v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd [2019] “In respect of its claim for damages for breach of contract, W issued a claim form on 19 June 2017, the day before expiry of the 6 year limitation period, and sent it, just before its validity expired, 4 months later, to P's solicitors, who had no authority to accept service. Accordingly, service was ineffective, the time bar had passed and the claim form expired. The Court of Appeal declined to allow "retrospective validation of service", the required "good reason" not having been established: Neither P nor its solicitors had a duty to advise of their lack of authorisation, they were not playing "technical games" and conversely W had "courted disaster" by leaving issue and service to the last moment.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 12th June 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-12/19 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594819206642-24S7OR8Y8TC5961R79XZ/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 12/19 “Under an amended Synacomex 90 c/p, an NOR was valid (by reason of c1.8 and 'WIPON') when served at the designated location (even if outside port limits), the intended loading place then being unavailable and the Master having warranted hold readiness. Subsequent hold inspection failure did not invalidate the NOR (as in the Mexico I) because the c/p specified the laytime effects of hold failure.” Hanna Szerszen E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 05th June 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-11/19 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594819075321-Y1DSQ759W10CXZUXCL4F/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 11/19 “A LMAA tribunal set a time for charterers' defence "on a peremptory basis" (10 weeks after service of the claim, both the 28-day period and an extension set by order having expired). The tribunal declined charterers' application to be allowed to serve their defence and counterclaim late, rejecting charterers' complaint that the Tribunal had not specified, when making the peremptory order, which of the 4 possible sanctions it would adopt (under s.41 (7) Arbitration Act), pointing to the 'norm' being an award, and indicating that it was not open to the Tribunal to review a peremptory deadline, once it had passed. Nor did the refusal amount to dismissal of the counterclaim — this could not occur without the counterclaim having been brought in the first place.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 29th May 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/boskalis-offshore-marine-contracting-bv-v-atlantic-marine-and-aviation-llp-the-atlantic-tonjer-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594818738507-INON3B1QRHTPJYJIUU97/190522.png Case Summaries - Boskalis Offshore Marine Contracting BV v Atlantic Marine and Aviation LLP (The "Atlantic Tonjer") [2019] “Clause 12(e) of a c/p on an amended Bimco SupplyTime 2017 form contained provided that payments of hire, fuel invoices and disbursements should be paid by Charterers within a certain number of days (21) from the date of receipt of the invoice without the possibility to discount or set-off. It also provided that if Charterer believed that the invoice was incorrect, they should still pay the undisputed portion of the invoice and withhold payment of the rest notifying the reason to the Owners by the due date. The Court dismissed Charterers' appeal based on the arguments that the clause was unclear or ambiguous as did not state that a failure to give notice would debar Charterers opportunity to raise any defence. The Court held that the clause was clear and is not analogous to a time bar clause or any other type of clause limiting liability and it was just the result of a commercial agreement between two equal bargaining powers that obliged charterers to raise bona fide disputes timeously as timeously payments are of essence in time charters. According to the Court a different interpretation would "make clause 12(e) a dead letter".” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 22nd May 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/pan-ocean-co-ltd-v-china-base-group-co-ltd-and-another-the-grand-ace-12-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594818887918-0Y7K2NFJT531M8WUA4X8/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Pan Ocean Co Ltd v China-Base Group Co Ltd and Another (The "Grand Ace 12") [2019] “The Court declined to grant owners an anti-suit injunction restraining proceedings against them by buyers of a cargo of cycle oil carried on board their vessel. An implied contract (said by owners (i) to arise out of buyers' conduct and (ii) to include a B/L exclusive English law/jurisdiction clause -ECJ) even if established, was insufficient to satisfy Art.25 of the Recast Brussels Regulation: whilst the B/L was in writing, the required consent to it and its ECJ was not.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 16th May 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/k-v-a-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594818542900-0ESP66Y2HM8BECY3AHIG/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - K v A [2019] “The Court dismissed the appeal against an arbitration award which ordered the Buyer, K, to pay the balance of the price under a contract of sale of a cargo of sunflower meal. K was victim of fraud as the payment was directed to an account other than that of the Seller, A, by a forged email. The Court upheld the Tribunal's ruling that K bore the risk of false instructions and its contractual obligation was to ensure that payment in cash was received by A in its nominated bank account. The Court however remitted the award back to the Tribunal on the grounds of serious irregularity in failing to hear K's argument as to validity of the true instructions.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 09th May 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sonact-group-ltd-v-premuda-spa-four-island-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594818438762-MF4MWRQM99O0GCQZ0DVD/190501+settlement+agrmt+subj+to+cp+arbn+cl.jpg Case Summaries - Sonact Group Ltd v Premuda Spa "Four Island" [2018] “The Commercial Court decides that the jurisdiction clause of a charterparty applies also to an agreement for settlement of disputes under the charter, even though the settlement agreement contained no jurisdiction clause.” George Arghyrakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 01st May 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/aprile-spa-ors-v-elin-maritime-ltd-the-an-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594816748474-T2HINTMJE8H2UTBIN2KX/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Aprile S.PA. &amp; Ors. v Elin Maritime Ltd ("The an") [2019] “A bill of lading provided that cargo was "loaded on deck at shipper's and/or consignee's and/or receiver's risk; the carrier and/or Owners and/or Vessel being not responsible for loss or damage howsoever arising...". The Court considered that it was difficult to conceive of wider words of exemption and held that the provision was effective to exclude Owners' liability for loss or damage to deck cargo even if caused by unseaworthiness or their negligence.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 24th April 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/eleni-shipping-ltd-v-transgrain-shipping-bv-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594816480788-M6LWNEL9FGRQGR7US43U/190417+KandR+and+GoA.jpg Case Summaries - Eleni Shipping Ltd v Transgrain Shipping BV [2019] “A Time charter clause provided that Charterers were allowed to transit the Gulf of Aden, against reimbursing EWR/K&R premia and crew bonus; also, that if the vessel 'threatened/kidnapped by reason of piracy payment of hire shall be suspended'. The High Court, confirming an arbitration award on this point, held that this clause rendered the Vessel off hire throughout the period starting with her seizure in the Arabian Sea on her laden passage (after transit of Suez and the Gulf of Aden), and continuing following her release (7 months later) during emergency repairs and supplies and until regaining a position equidistant between seizure and destination. The Court held that in a charter of this nature, the geographical extent of the Gulf of Aden is not strictly defined and the natural construction of the risk allocation provision is that loss of time as a consequence of the transit should be borne by Owners.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 17th April 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/bv-nederlandse-industrie-van-eiprodukten-v-rembrandt-enterprises-inc-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594816268513-J0E2VCJ3008RE0JH5ZVK/190410+fraudulent+misrep.jpg Case Summaries - BV Nederlandse Industrie Van Eiprodukten v Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc. [2019] “In the context of the avian flu epidemic of 2015 R, a US supplier of egg products, contracted with N to fulfil, over two years, R's supply commitments. In light of an agreed but suspicious increase in the sale price and alleged failure to meet required US standards, R suspended performance, causing N to claim loss of profit damages. The first instance judge dismissed the quality issue but granted R rescission on the grounds of N's fraudulent misrepresentation as to prices. The CA dismissed N's appeal based on the test of inducement, drawing a distinction between fraudulent and non-fraudulent misrepresentation: the test in the former is less rigorous, as there is no requirement for the representee to show that he would not have entered into the contract but for the representation, it being sufficient that the fraud was "actively present to his mind".” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 10th April 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/singapore-arbitration-2/19 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594816056249-5RYC2XIJO37OHVOBXATA/190404+incumbrance+clause+warranty+sale+purchase.jpg Case Summaries - Singapore Arbitration 2/19 “Under a contract for sale and purchase of a vessel, with an NSF type "encumbrances clause" (9), Sellers disputed liability to pay a bunker claim incurred by prior bareboat sub-charters. After the (post-delivery) arrest of the vessel in the Philippines, Buyers settled the claim and started arbitration proceedings seeking an indemnity from Sellers. The tribunal found that the claim in itself did not give rise to a breach of clause 9, as it was not an in rem debt against the vessel (and bareboat sub-charterers had no authority to create a lien); however, the pre-delivery issue by them of an (un-served and unknown to Sellers) in rem writ in Singapore did place Sellers in breach of clause 9, rendering them liable to indemnify Buyers.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis Co. 04th April 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/glencore-energy-uk-ltd-anor-v-freeport-holdings-ltd-the-lady-m-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594815707612-ETRWSJVZ5B5W6T0IEW3O/image-asset.png Case Summaries - Glencore Energy UK Ltd &amp; Anor v Freeport Holdings Ltd (The 'Lady M') [2019] “The Court upheld the first instance decision that article IV r2(b) exempts the carrier from liability if the fire was caused deliberately or barratrously (meaning without the actual fault or privity of the carrier). The appellants tried in vain to infer that barratry would be incompatible with fault or neglect of the crew (here the chief engineer) but the Court found no basis for justifying such conclusion.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 27th March 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-8/19 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594815547714-QSZOZCY8BBGSSWHBM5ZU/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 8/19 “A charterparty on an amended NYPE form contained an additional clause prohibiting deductions from hire of amounts for underperformance, except undisputed off-hire. The Tribunal held that this did not allow equitable set-off unless agreed by owners which was not the case. Charterers' argument that they were suspending rather than deducting hire was also dismissed as a meaningless distinction.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 20th March 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/alize-1954-anor-v-allianz-elementar-versicherungs-ag-ors-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594815363247-PA5WNWX9M72432HIPUOA/190313+bad+passage+plan+unswthy.jpg Case Summaries - Alize 1954 &amp; Anor v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG &amp; Ors [2019] “Following a grounding on leaving a port, cargo interests contested Owners' claim for GA and salvage contribution. The Court found that Owners' passage plan was defective and the Master's decision to leave the fairway was imprudent. The former was held to be the operative cause, such that the Vessel was unseaworthy pursuant to Art. III r.1., depriving the Owners of an Art. IV r. 2 (a) defence and their claim to contribution. Although irrelevant to the outcome, the Judge dismissed cargo interests' argument that following "Volcafe", the burden of dis-proving causative unseaworthiness under Art. III r.1 lay on the carrier, stating that in his judgment, that decision was restricted to Art. III r.2.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 13th March 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-6/19 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594815056877-LJ4T9RMWIWPYYDV3JM01/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 6/19 “The performance clause in a trip time charter (South Africa to China) defined good weather as "wind speeds of maximum beaufort force 4 (11-16knots) and total-combined (sea and swell) significant wave height confined to limits of douglas sea state 3 (0.5-1.25 meters)". Despite acknowledging the uncertainty of the terminology and the difficulty in reconciling two entirely different measures of sea condition, the Tribunal found that there would be no contradiction if good weather criteria were restricted to significant wave heights of no more than 1.25 m, even though this might render DSS3 surplusage and lower the required performance standard to something less than might be expected in charters of this nature.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 06th March 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/silverburn-shipping-lom-ltd-v-ark-shipping-company-llc-m/v-arctic-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594814870991-BACEDAU5L649LY7XFKDC/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Silverburn Shipping (loM) Ltd v Ark Shipping Company LLC (M/V "ARCTIC") [2019] “The High Court held that the Classification clause (9) in a BARECON '89 Charterparty is both an absolute obligation and a condition, such that if charterers allow Class to lapse, owners are entitled to terminate. In so doing it overturned an arbitration award concluding that clause (9) was part of the continuing maintenance obligation and imposed only an intermediate obligation of reasonable diligence, i.e. to reinstate the vessel's Class within a reasonable time.” Amandine Gulgnard E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 27th February 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/nautical-challenge-ltd-v-evergreen-marine-uk-ltd-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594814737359-VVRBGHXSUTJPCVMI016S/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Nautical Challenge Ltd v Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd [2019] “Last year the Court of Appeal ruled that responsibility for the collision between Alexandra I (container ship) and Eversmart (tanker) was to be apportioned 80:20. The claims totalled some USD36m. The Admiralty Court recently assessed recoverable damages at USD9.3m for Alexandra I and USD2.53 for Eversmart. The Court declined to award extended loss to Alexandra I on the basis of "impecuniosity" of her Owners (said to cause delay to repairs, causing loss of market and eventual judicial sale). The owners had failed on the facts to establish the necessary causation between collision and delay/market collapse.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 20th February 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/hsbc-bank-plc-v-pearl-corporation-sa-ors-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594814558882-D5UZ51ALF7NM6654LB25/190213+bank+good+faith.jpg Case Summaries - HSBC Bank Plc v Pearl Corporation SA &amp; Ors [2019] “HSBC advanced USD3Om for the acquisition of 2 vessels. A subsequent fall in the freight market resulted in the owning entities being in breach of the financing arrangements. The Bank sought to enforce its claim under the personal guarantees (which were subject to English jurisdiction but Greek law). The guarantor argued that the Bank's conduct had been contrary to a principle of "good faith" enshrined in Greek law. The High Court found that the allegations against the Bank — including a) failing to compromise with borrowers b) taking time to negotiate debt restructuring, c) refusing a 'haircut' to the debtor and d) preferring one customer to another — were not made out and that the Bank's claim succeeded in full.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 13rd February https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-4/19-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594814337422-Y58NXTAG666SKFU13JI1/190206+ICA+cargo+claim+delay.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 4/19 — [2019] “The incorporation of the ICA in a time charterparty meant that both parties agreed to the definition of "cargo claims" as "claims for loss, damage, shortage...overcarriage of or delay to cargo". A tribunal considered that there was no reason to give a different meaning to those words elsewhere in the charterparty, including an addendum clause rendering Charterers fully liable for all "cargo claims". Unsuccessfully, Charterers argued that a claim for diminution in value of the cargo due to the vessel's delay fell outside the meaning of the addendum clause.” Amandine Guignard E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 06th February 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/koshigi-ltd-anor-v-donna-union-foundation-anor-2019 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594814123972-SSNU8WCU6RXUEMEYAFSQ/190130+Serious+irreg+and+costs.jpg Case Summaries - Koshigi Ltd &amp; Anor v Donna Union Foundation &amp; Anor [2019] “Unsuccessful shareholder respondents to an LCIA arbitration commenced Court proceedings under s68 of the Arbitration Act alleging "serious irregularity" on the basis of bias, non-disclosure and other defects. The arbitration claimants sought security for their costs of defending the challenge and shortly afterwards the shareholders discontinued their s68 challenges. Given the weakness of the allegations, and the fact that security would have been awarded had the application continued, the Court ordered that the shareholders bear the claimants' costs of both the challenge and the security application on an indemnity basis.” Jason Charalambous E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 30th January 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-1/19 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594813906471-P4W73PUWTYOSHJ6H52JH/190123+prohib+cargo+hold+cleaning.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 1/19 “Charterers accepted that, in breach of an amended NYPE charter, they had loaded a prohibited cargo. However, Owners' claim for damages, namely the cost of extra time spent hold cleaning after redelivery of the vessel, failed. The Tribunal accepted Charterers' case that Owners were unable to formulate, particularise or prove any additional costs beyond the 'ILOHC' lumpsum provided in the charter. In particular there was no evidence as to the nature of the cleaning, nor any costs or losses associated with any missed follow-on fixture.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 23rd January 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/the-swiber-concorde-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594813473452-7SFU4679KQ0M9GOLNSSC/190116+judic+sale+spore.jpg Case Summaries - The "Swiber Concorde" [2018] “Further to an abortive sale, the Sheriff sold the arrested vessel pursuant to clause 16 (b) of the Conditions of Sale "If the Buyer fails ... to make any one of the payments... the Sheriff... may... forfeit all payments made by the Buyer...". Although the sale contract was made between the Sheriff and the Buyer, the Court found that the forfeited sums in the earlier abortive sale should be treated as part of the proceeds of the judicial sale of the vessel. They could not be retained by the Sheriff for public benefit as the Sheriff did not contract on behalf of the State but for the benefit of the parties interested in the arrested vessel and the title to the vessel rested with the shipowner.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 16th January 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/griffin-underwriting-ltd-v-varouxakis-free-goddess-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594726284091-2HPOO1ZXXFEBOZC70B3O/190109+Free+Goddess+jurisd.jpg Case Summaries - Griffin Underwriting Ltd v Varouxakis (Free Goddess) [2018] “Insured shipowners' claim under a marine policy of kidnap and ransom was paid by insurers pursuant to a settlement agreement. Insurers then sought damages against their insured's director, domiciled in Greece, for procuring a breach of the settlement agreement (by depriving them of a subrogated claim for cargo's GA contribution and failing to account for such GA contributions as were received). The director was held to have submitted to the English Court's jurisdiction by failing to raise a challenge in time. The Court found that it would have had jurisdiction in any event (under Art. 7(2) of the Recast Brussels Regulation) in relation to the accounting under the settlement agreement, as this was to occur in England; however, (but for the submission) it would not have had jurisdiction over the unrecoverable GA, as that loss was sustained in Oman, where the voyage was abandoned after the release of the vessel by pirates.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 09th January 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/singapore-arbitration-4/18 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594725527752-RMHOI0Y4QYLRNKI13VR8/190102+MOA+Spore.jpg Case Summaries - Singapore Arbitration 4/18 “Under an MOA on the 2012 saleform with addenda, following NOR, Sellers were to provide (i) their own confirmation of non-encumbrance and (ii) a confirmation from the Vessel's registry. In the absence of (ii), Buyers failed to pay the purchase price and Sellers cancelled the MOA. The Tribunal dismissed Buyers' claim for return of the deposit and damages, finding that on a true construction of the addenda, (ii) need not be provided before the payment obligation was triggered. Sellers' cancellation was valid, entitling them to retain the deposit.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 02nd January 2019 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/catlin-syndicate-limited-underwritingas-xi-catlin-syndicate-2003-and-xi-insurance-companyse-v-weyerhaeuser-company-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594725389710-U24Z8949DB8MQ6QKKRCU/181227+jurisdiction.jpg Case Summaries - Catlin Syndicate Limited (Underwritingas XI Catlin Syndicate 2003) and XI Insurance CompanySE v Weyerhaeuser Company [2018] “Seemingly contradictory jurisdiction clauses were reconciled by the Commercial Court which, in a final order, restrained the defendant from pursuing proceedings under an insurance policy before the courts of the State of Washington. The Commercial Court found that the parties had agreed London arbitration and that the U.S. jurisdiction clauses should be read so as to apply only in the context of enforcing an arbitration award (or obtaining jurisdiction in the event that the parties dispensed with arbitration).” Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 27th December 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/wolff-v-trinity-logistics-usa-inc-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594725232538-UKJ9HJWXBV0VV1G6BYVU/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Wolff v Trinity Logistics USA Inc [2018] “Trinity agreed with its agents that shipments for UK importers, Fielding, would be released against documents proving payment for goods. Nevertheless Mr Wolff, Fielding's director, agreed with the agents that shipments would be released just on payment of the agents' fees, the agents then falsifying the documents sent to Trinity. Fielding, in administration, failed to pay for the goods and Trinity (having paid the suppliers) sought damages from Mr Wolff based on various torts including procurement of breach, conversion, deceit and conspiracy. On the evidence, the High Court upheld only the first, the CA agreeing (although granting permission to appeal on conspiracy).” Miles Callaghan E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 18th December 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/stallion-eight-shipping-co-sa-v-natwest-markets-plc-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594725019882-D56ZGLNKPM6ARGYUGCJ5/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Stallion Eight Shipping Co. SA v Natwest Markets Plc [2018] “The CA has confirmed Teare J's decision to refuse to order a cross-undertaking in damages in relation to a ship-arrest. The CA found that there was no case to intervene on this discretionary decision when the Judge had followed the usual practice; further, departing from the established practice would undermine confidence in the maritime jurisdiction. However, whereas Teare J took the view that only Parliament could bring about the change sought by the defendants, the CA considered that theoretically it fell within the Court's discretion — although in the absence of international consensus and overwhelming support from the maritime industry, there was no reason to alter the status quo.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 12th December 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/volcafe-ltd-ors-v-compania-sud-americana-de-vapores-sa-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594724296152-T48CEJYZDSL48E7D492T/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Volcafe Ltd &amp; Ors v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores SA [2018] “The Supreme Court has overruled the Court of Appeal and held that defending a cargo claim under the Hague Rules, a carrier must prove (i) that the loss was not caused by a breach of the Article III cargo care duties and (ii) not just that the matter falls within one of the Article IV r2 exceptions but that there was no causative negligence on his part.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 05th December 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-22/18 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594724071731-RMOX5DHB4PXY6FACYZ6J/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 22/18 “A time charter performance warranty was based on "good weather condition" (Beaufort 4 etc.) but without specifying the period it must subsist in order to qualify. The Tribunal rejected an argument that at least 12 hours of good or bad weather in any noon to noon period should characterise weather. Although performance was ultimately decided on other grounds, the Tribunal suggested that a better method was to look at weather conditions at the beginning and end each 6-hour period within any noon to noon 24 hours in order to characterise a weather day.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 28th November 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/cargill-international-trading-pte-ltd-v-uttam-galva-steels-ltd-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594723773203-UI084JZQFFPL41GC395R/181122+summary+judgment+prevention+principle.jpg Case Summaries - Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd v Uttam Galva Steels Ltd [2018] “Pursuant to contracts, Cargill made advance payments (USD61m) to Uttam for the purchase of steel, obliging Uttam either to provide steel to that value or refund the advance. Uttam did neither and Cargill sought and obtained summary judgment. The Court declined to hold that Cargill's contractually separate failure to take up Uttam's other offers of steel constituted a defence (based on the 'prevention principle') with a reasonable prospect of success.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 22nd November 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/suez-fortune-investments-ltd-anor-v-talbot-underwriting-ltd-ors-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594723426260-SF9FWVQ3T71FQZSTNPVG/181114.jpg Case Summaries - Suez Fortune Investments Ltd &amp; Anor v Talbot Underwriting Ltd &amp; Ors [2018] “In connection with a contested constructive total loss claim under a war risks policy on the vessel "Brillante Virtuoso", the defendant underwriters — who allege that the vessel was "scuttled" by her Owner — applied for an order to reveal the hitherto protected identity of a key witness in the action. Despite the order being opposed by City of London Police, the Court granted the application because the true identity was already known to those who could pose a threat to the witness, therefore the anonymity was not necessary to avoid harm to him or his relatives.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 14th November 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/cssa-chartering-and-shipping-services-sa-v-mitsui-osk-lines-ltd-the-pacific-voyager-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594723110080-1J50AFF9PIQGQHKHTNK2/181107+obligation+to+commence+approach+voyage+fortwith+reasonable+time.jpg Case Summaries - CSSA Chartering and Shipping Services SA v Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd ("The Pacific Voyager") [2018] “Under a voyage charter on an amended Shellvoy 5 form, charterers exercised their right to cancel but also claimed damages following from a breach of the obligation to commence the approach voyage in time. Although the c/p contained neither ETA nor expected readiness to load provision, the CA, confirming the Court below, found that the c/p references to the previous fixture itinerary equally imposed upon owners an obligation to begin the approach voyage "forthwith" or "within a reasonable time".” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 07th November 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/boru-hatlari-as-ors-v-tepe-insaat-sanayii-as-jersey-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594722771224-5QRQDXUUMA6Y8IPS60T2/181101.jpg Case Summaries - Boru Hatlari AS &amp; Ors v Tepe Insaat Sanayii AS (Jersey) [2018] “Tepe obtained arbitration awards against (Turkish-State owned) Bota§ for amounts over USD100m in respect of work on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. By way of enforcement, Tepe obtained interim orders from the Jersey Courts over shares held by Bota§ in two Jersey subsidiaries. The Privy Council heard Bota§' appeal on the grounds of State Immunity and concluded that the shares were neither "property" of the Turkish State nor sufficiently controlled by the State as to qualify for immunity under the relevant statutes.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 01st November 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/clearlake-shipping-pte-limited-appellant-v-privocean-shipping-limited-respondent-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594722563922-72COD0BHS6H5PQWYXV9L/181024+Art+IV+r2a.jpg Case Summaries - Clearlake Shipping PTE Limited (Appellant) v Privocean Shipping Limited (Respondent) [2018] “For the carriage of soya beans pursuant to an NYPE T/C, the Master insisted on a stowage plan involving strapping cargo in a slack hold. The issue was the cost and time of that operation, amounting to some USD410,000. Arbitrators found that the Master's requirement was unfounded, unnecessary and a breach of CI.8 but ruled that Art.IV r.2(a) of incorporated US COGSA excused Owners. The Court dismissed Charterers' appeal against that ruling, agreeing with the Tribunal that what motivated the Master was stability of the Vessel, thus his insistence was management of the Vessel and not the cargo.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 24th October 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/mamancochet-mining-limited-v-aegis-agency-limited-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594721943931-PL8VNHY23TR8GSRO2V0O/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Mamancochet Mining Limited v Aegis Agency Limited [2018] “The JHC/JCC standard sanction clause in a London market cargo policy did not entitle insurers to withhold payment of the insured's claim which arose when two cargoes carried to Iran in August 2012, were shortly thereafter stolen from bonded store. The clause requirement that payment "would expose that insurer to any sanction...under [UN, EU, UK or US resolution/regulation]" had not been met. At the time of the carriage and theft no relevant sanctions were in place and although at various times since then sanctions would have applied and indeed in the case of the US would soon re-apply (as of 5th November), the Court found that up until 1159 on 4 November, payment would not be prohibited under one of the named systems and therefore could not "expose" insurers to sanctions.” Giacomo Fiorani E. G. Arghyrakis Co. 17th October 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/evergreen-marine-uk-limited-v-nautical-challenge-ltd-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594721733870-B1P7A8541JPO4WC6K66H/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Evergreen Marine (UK) Limited v Nautical Challenge Ltd [2018] “A vessel leaving port crossed and collided in the channel with an inbound vlcc awaiting the pilot. Both were to blame for observation failures. Whereas the crossing regulations would produce a different result, the CA, confirming the Court below, held that they did not apply. Instead the exiting vessel was subject to the narrow channel rule and at fault. Further, her excessive speed was significant to both culpability and apportionment.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 11th October 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-21/18-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594721588674-SO6E6FA6GJPYHZSL7SFW/181003+performance.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 21/18 [2018] “A T/C description clause providing "above speed and consumption....with a tolerance of 5pct about" [emphasis added] did not imply a single 5% allowance where each of speed and consumption had been expressed in "about" terms. Further, "No negative influence of currents/swell" meant that those conditions did not qualify as good weather but positive currents and swell were to be ignored. And an off hire claim was held to be an attempted performance claim via the back door and in the absence of a stoppage or proof of time loss, failed.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 03rd October 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/close-brothers-limited-v-ais-marine-2-limited-in-liquidation-and-anor-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594720955240-UXDXY7X5LDO694P9D2EM/180926.jpg Case Summaries - Close Brothers Limited v AIS (Marine) 2 Limited (in liquidation) and Anor [2018] “Following default in owners' repayments, a ship was repossessed and sold by the claimant mortgagee bank who then sought a shortfall from the guarantor. The Court ruled that a defence of "sale at undervalue" although technically available to the guarantor, was unsustainable on the facts. Despite the sale price being just over the book debt it was nonetheless reasonable. Nor did sale to a client of the appointed S&P brokers involve a "connected person" such as to reverse the burden of proof.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 26th September 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/classic-maritime-inc-v-limbungan-makmur-sdn-bhd-anor-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594720810522-03V2XXILEXJUMG9KICDE/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Classic Maritime Inc. v Limbungan Makmur SDN BHD &amp; Anor [2018] “After the collapse of a dam in Brazil, charterers were unable to supply cargoes from a flooded iron ore mine for shipment under a COA and relied on the force majeure or exception clause to excuse their failure. The Court found that in fact charterers would not have shipped cargoes in any event, so there was no causative effect between the dam burst and the failure and the clause was inapplicable. However, owners were unable to recover substantial damages as the dam burst would have prevented the shipment of any iron ore and the compensatory principle operated to prevent owners being placed in a better position than they would otherwise have been.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 19th September 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-18/18 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594720685338-FNJ1O2VET36XD7YJ9ZLO/180912+ICA+2011.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 18/18 “A Tribunal held that a time charter providing "liability for cargo claims... shall be apportioned/settled as specified by the Interclub... Agreement... 1996 and its subsequent amendments..." did not incorporate Clause 9 of the ICA as added in 2011 - providing for the counter-securing of cargo claims — but only those parts of the ICA dealing with settlement and apportionment.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 12th September 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/banca-nazionale-del-lavoro-spa-v-playboy-club-london-ltd-ors-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594720517482-DBQFC4PKWR3EB571DA2X/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SPA v Playboy Club London Ltd &amp; Ors [2018] “The Supreme Court dismissed Playboy Club's appeal in a case about a negligent credit reference for GBP1.6m supplied by BNL for its customer. As was the Club's practice, in order to conceal the gambling purpose, the reference was to be supplied directly to the Club's associated company, Burlington. Relying on the reference, the Club offered a substantial cash facility to its member, who subsequently defaulted. The Club (being the party who had suffered the loss) proceeded against BNL in tort, on the basis of a breach of duty of care. The Supreme Court upheld BNL's defence, ruling that it owed no duty of care to an undisclosed principal who was neither identified nor identifiable.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 05th September 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/navig8-chemicals-pool-inc-v-glencore-agriculture-bv-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594720355903-7TBXAB9PPERB0QFK7F8G/180829.jpg Case Summaries - Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc v Glencore Agriculture BV [2018] “In March, the Commercial Court ruled that a bank's proceedings against a carrier for misdelivery of cargo activated LOIs granted by voyage charterers, Glencore, to disponent owners, Navig8. Glencore's time bar defence, based on Clause 38 of the voyage charter (providing that "the period of validity of any letter of indemnity will be 3 months from date of issue... the indemnity will expire at the end of.. three-month period"), had been dismissed on the basis that the Clause was not a time bar but simply defined the deliveries to be covered by LOIs. Despite the Court of Appeal holding that Clause 38 did constitute a time bar, it nevertheless dismissed Glencore's appeal on the grounds that the LOI terms were 'stand-alone' and included no equivalent expiry provision to that in the charter.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 29th August 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-19/18 monthly 0.5 2020-07-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594720258408-W86VV7B6P443YMBBTNWT/180822+time-bar+intermediate+broker.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 19/18 “By a COA involving several voyages on amended Asbatankvoy terms, Owners' demurrage claims were subject to a 30-day documentary time-bar, running from the day after discharge completed, requiring supporting material to be sent "to Charterers". Owners sent documentation to brokers whose name appeared in a commission clause of the charters. The Tribunal found that those brokers were intermediated brokers whose principals were neither Owners nor Charterers and whose only duty was to pass on messages up and down the chartering chain. Owners could not therefore establish receipt of the documentation by Charterers in time and their claims were time barred.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 22nd August 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/bumi-armada-offshore-holdings-and-anor-v-tozzi-sri-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-13 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594642798196-EIYSYPOS4336NTZRJQTP/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Bumi Armada Offshore Holdings and Anor v Tozzi SrI [2018] “Bumi Armada granted Tozzi a right of first refusal for certain works in a floating gas production and storage facility construction project; having awarded those works elsewhere, Bumi Armada said that the right was not binding as the minutes of meeting recording it (drawn up by Bumi Armada but signed by both parties) were expressed to be "subject to ...contract". The Court of Appeal found that the first refusal agreement had been concluded orally at the meeting and that on the facts, the minutes had no contractual effect and their "subject to contract" proviso was ineffective.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 15th August 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/natwest-markets-plc-v-stallion-eight-shipping-co-sa-the-ship-mv-alkyon-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-13 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594642363720-X1ZW9EKRVUZ68W4PMGGT/180808.jpg Case Summaries - Natwest Markets Plc v Stallion Eight Shipping Co. SA, (the ship MV ALKYON) [2018] “The claimant bank had provided a loan for the purchase of a vessel; alleging default, it called in the loan and arrested the vessel as security for its claim. Owners sought release of the vessel unless the bank provided a cross-undertaking in damages. In an urgent but landmark ruling the Admiralty Court held that it had no jurisdiction to require such an undertaking.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 08th August 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sea-master-shipping-inc-v-arab-bank-switzerland-ltd-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-13 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594641875524-TETJ2PFEW0FWWC6BJ0LG/180801.jpg Case Summaries - Sea Master Shipping Inc v Arab Bank (Switzerland) Ltd [2018] “In a London arbitration involving a bank to whose order the bills of lading had been consigned, shipowners sought demurrage. The Court allowed shipowners' challenge to the Tribunal's ruling that the bank received rights but not liabilities under the bills so that claims against it were not arbitrable. The Court did not rule on the demurrage or the extent of liabilities, referring these issues back to the Tribunal.” George Arghyrakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 01st August 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/shagang-shipping-company-ltd-v-hna-group-company-ltd-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-13 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594641295285-IIV6EEXBEYTCLLVTJQZJ/180725.jpg Case Summaries - Shagang Shipping Company Ltd v HNA Group Company Ltd [2018] “H, the guarantor of a long-term time charter, faced a USD68.5m claim from S after charterers failed to perform. H argued that both charter and guarantee were unenforceable, being procured by bribery, evidenced by individuals' confessions. S said the confessions resulted from torture. All relevant parties and events were in the PRC. The 1st instance Judge found no bribery and that neither the confession nor torture evidence was reliable. The CA ruled that the Judge should first have decided upon the torture, so his finding on bribery was unsound. In the unusual circumstances, the matter was remitted to another 1st instance judge to consider the evidence afresh.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 25th July 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sixteenth-ocean-gmbh-co-kg-v-societe-generale-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-13 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594641004384-9TT61VYWZVD3SZSV9ZYM/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Sixteenth Ocean GmbH &amp; Co Kg v Societe Generale [2018] “After the intervention of US sanctions, a USD35.5m shipbuilding loan concluded with IRISL subsidiaries was terminated and called in by the lenders. The sums due — including a 'termination amount' demanded on 9 June 2010 — were repaid by the subsidiaries on 14 December 2010 and irretrievably distributed between lenders by 5 January 2011. On 10 January 2017 the claimant subsidiary started proceedings alleging that the 'termination amount' was never due, having been paid under economic duress, and sought damages for breach of contract or in restitution. The Court held that any breach occurred on 9 June 2010 and any unjust enrichment between 14 December 2010 and 5 January 2011, so that on any view the 6-year Limitation Act period had expired. Nor could it be extended under s.32, economic duress not constituting 'fraud' and there being no deliberate concealment of the distribution.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 18th July 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/seadrill-ghana-operations-ltd-v-tullow-ghana-ltd-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-13 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594640116951-TJG751Y9XDQJJV9RL8FT/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Seadrill Ghana Operations Ltd v Tullow Ghana Ltd [2018] “By a 5-year 2013 contract, Seadrill agreed to provide drilling services to Tullow by a semi-submersible tug, in specified sea areas off Ghana. In2014, an UNCLOS tribunal ordered Ghana to stop drilling with the effect that from late 2016 Tullow would not be able to exploit the relevant areas. Tullow ceased to pay hire and terminated the contract relying on a term excusing performance if fulfilment of the contract was delayed or prevented by defined 'force majeure' events. The Court found that although there was a force majeure event as defined (drilling moratorium) it had to be the sole cause of the party's failure to perform. Here however there were two concurrent causes preventing performance and the other (government failure to approve a wider plan), was held to be the effective one.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 11th July 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/fehn-schiffarhts-gmbh-co-kg-v-romani-spa-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-13 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594639916427-07PHGY69SKQ70LFFL8RC/180704.jpg Case Summaries - Fehn Schiffarhts GMBH &amp; Co KG v Romani Spa [2018] “Owners challenged an arbitration award which held them liable to charterers in damages representing loss of value of the cargo following unauthorised fumigation. After the damage, receivers had assigned rights to charterers. If, as appeared, that assignment had been the basis of the tribunal's ruling, they had erred in law in not first making any finding that the receivers had sustained loss (an assignee not being able to acquire rights greater than those of the assignor); if charterers in their own right had suffered the loss (as alternatively argued), this too was not apparent from the award, which the Court ordered should be remitted to the tribunal for further consideration.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 04th July 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-15/18 monthly 0.5 2020-07-13 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594639817127-X2VJ4IC8V13WSHW8DWCY/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 15/18 “The Tribunal found that Sellers had exceeded the contractually specified period of delay, such that Buyers were entitled to terminate a shipbuilding contract and recover the instalments advanced; The Tribunal rejected Sellers' contentions for an implied term as to mutual co-operation and non-impeding, or the application of the 'Prevention Principle' on the grounds that the sophisticated express terms left no room for such provisions.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 27th June 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/deep-sea-maritime-ltd-v-monjasa-a/s-the-alhani-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-13 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594639658411-YXAFNTK8GKGXK4SRSSWA/180620.jpg Case Summaries - Deep Sea Maritime Ltd v Monjasa A/S (The Alhani) [2018] “In an important case relating to the Hague Rules, the High Court ruled that (i) the Art III rule 6 one year time bar applies to claims for wrongful delivery (as well as claims for failures in the carriage of the cargo); and (ii) that such time bar is not interrupted by proceedings brought in a jurisdiction other than that stipulated, even if the Claimant did not have actual knowledge of the jurisdiction provision.” George Arghyrakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 20th June 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/p-v-q-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-13 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594639420136-XUWG27Q1RXBYF9J5XP57/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - P v Q [2018] “A long chain included 'middle' voyage charters (P/Q, Q/R, R/S) each with a clause imposing a time bar unless claims were notified and an arbitrator appointed within 13 months of final discharge. A cargo damage claim was brought against head owners after 11 months. Notice of an indemnity claim reached 'P' on the last day of the 13 month period remained unseen until the following day, so that notice to 'Q' and so on down the line was delayed. The Court construed the clause literally and strictly, rather than in the light of the chain. It also declined to extend P's time under s.12 of the Arbitration Act because although the circumstances were outside the reasonable contemplation of the parties, P did not act expeditiously and in a commercially appropriate fashion viz a viz Q.” Rebecca Windsor E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 14th June 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/grindrod-shipping-pte-ltd-v-hyundai-merchant-marine-co-ltd-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-13 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594639027525-8W9G6BDCD252MAEP28KS/180606.jpg Case Summaries - Grindrod Shipping PTE LTD V Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. LTD [2018] “Time charterers Grindrod had delayed for more than 6 years in pursuing their London arbitration claim for damages against owners and in the meantime the contractual time bar passed. The Tribunal issued an award, dismissing the claim on the grounds of an inordinate and inexcusable delay. The High Court dismissed Grindrod's 'serious irregularity' challenge to the award, pursuant to S.68 of the Arbitration Act , on the grounds that the complaint was one of form rather than substance (submissions raised and responded to under one heading had been addressed under another) and therefore there had been no breach of duty by the Tribunal nor any substantial injustice.” Andreas Chiratos E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 06th June 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/rock-advertising-ltd-v-mwb-business-exchange-centres-ltd-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-13 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594638730018-H9DPOXAYHO8WYT7MU6OJ/180530.jpg Case Summaries - Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd [2018] “The Supreme Court held that the No Oral Modification (NOM) provision in a contract for occupation of office premises deprived a subsequent alleged oral agreement of any binding force as a contract variation. Parties who orally agree to the terms of a variation of the substance of their contractual relationship do not thereby impliedly agree to dispense with the NOM clause.” Kozeta Osmani E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 30th May 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/navigator-spirit-sa-v-five-oceans-salvage-sa-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-13 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594638445037-R7YNPWCYI9H33W3H6L0L/180523.jpg Case Summaries - Navigator Spirit SA v Five Oceans Salvage SA [2018] “Following salvage assistance to a Vessel suffering engine shut-downs near navigation channels, the LOF arbitrator based his award on a danger posed by temporary immobilisation but declined to find a collision risk danger. The appeal arbitrator accepted such a danger, increasing the salvor's remuneration. Owners raised a 'serious irregularity' challenge, saying that this particular danger (collision offshore instead of on channel passage) was neither pleaded nor argued but merely raised in discussion by the appeal arbitrator. The Court dismissed the challenge, refusing to find unfairness (Owners had the opportunity to address the point) or that any irregularity was 'serious' (given that salvage arbitration is informal in nature and the arbitrators are expected to use their own knowledge and experience) or that there had been substantial injustice (as a significantly different outcome was unlikely to have resulted from Owners addressing the new point).” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 23rd May 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/agile-holdings-corporation-v-essar-shipping-ltd-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-13 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594204363574-EKFX2RKNHA1LYETYHAW9/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Agile Holdings Corporation v Essar Shipping Ltd [2018] “The Court allowed an appeal from an arbitration award which had held that shipowners were unable to recover from charterers in respect of liability to those interested in a cargo of direct reduced iron. Clause 49 of the c/p on the NYPE 46 form stated "the Stevedores... to remain under the direction of the Master who will be responsible for proper stowage and seaworthiness and safety of the vessel". The Court held that such a partial transfer of responsibility to the shipowners for some aspects of cargo handling is not sufficient for there to be considered a "similar amendment" for the purposes of Clause 8(b) of the ICA.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 16th May 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/daewoo-shipbuilding-marine-engineering-co-ltd-v-songa-offshore-equinox-ltd-and-anor-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-08 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594204126787-LL2X8PLK2RVYZY8M77Z0/180509.jpg Case Summaries - Daewoo Shipbuilding &amp; Marine Engineering Co. Ltd v Songa Offshore Equinox Ltd and Anor [2018] “The 28 day period for challenging an Arbitration Award was held to run from the date of the Award and not from the date of a Memorandum (requested 12 days, and issued 27 days after the Award) under s57(3)(a) of the Arbitration Act, correcting what the Court termed "classic clerical and typographical errors". The corrections were unconnected with and not material to the grounds of appeal and the Court held that the appeal was out of time and declined to exercise its discretion to grant a retrospective extension.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 09th May 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/ap-moller-maersk-a/s-t/a-maersk-line-v-kyokuyo-ltd-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-07 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594119619995-QEFKUGD3N12AC9PWSIY2/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - AP Moller-Maersk A/s (t/a Maersk Line) v Kyokuyo Ltd [2018] “The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that "unit" in Article IV rule 5 of the Hague Visby Rules means a physical item and that "enumeration... as packed" means no more than specification in words or figures of the number of packages. Therefore, the first instance judge correctly concluded that the specification on the bills (in this case, waybills) was such that identified individual frozen tuna loins as the relevant units.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 02nd May 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-12/18 monthly 0.5 2020-07-07 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594119297708-FNOOWFVCXPHLO0W0IVHM/180425.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 12/18 “The sellers of a road salt cargo claimed that the buyers were in repudiatory breach of the sale contract for not providing the letter of credit on time. The Tribunal found that the provision of a letter of credit was to be read as an innominate term and not a condition as the failure to provide it would have not deprived the sellers of the whole benefit of the contract, i.e. the sale of salt and the expected profit.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 25th April 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/amt-futures-ltd-v-boural-ors-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-07 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594119176903-5OH278LUKA0FXS191NS6/180418.jpg Case Summaries - AMT Futures Ltd v Boural &amp; Ors [2018] “The Court found that an exclusive jurisdiction clause creates "continuing obligations" meaning that claimants were obliged to neither start nor continue proceedings anywhere other than England. Following commencement (in 2008) and continuation of negligence proceedings against them in Germany by their former clients, AMTF brought proceedings in England (in 2007) for damages for breach of the jurisdiction clause. The High Court held that allegations relating to events within 6 years of commencement of the English suit were not bound to fail and dismissed AMTF application for Summary Judgment.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 18th April 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jsc-bta-bank-v-khrapunov-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-07 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594118372977-UEP23ULLVU9L17WL8U46/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov [2018] “A defendant sentenced to imprisonment for contempt of Court for flouting a world-wide freezing order, fled the jurisdiction and remains unfound. The claimant bank then pursued the defendant's son-in-law, domiciled in Switzerland, for damages flowing from a conspiratorial agreement to assist in defeating the freezing order. The Supreme Court confirmed that the necessary 'harmful event', namely the making of the conspiratorial agreement, occurred in England (even if its implementation took place elsewhere), thus giving the English Courts jurisdiction, in this case under the Lugano convention.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 11th April 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-11/18 monthly 0.5 2020-07-07 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594118042474-6T6EKI3QHMVOSL2G2QX1/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 11/18 “A dispute arose under a Shelltime 4 charter following a claim by cargo receivers at Aqaba that the cargo was off-spec. Although the Tribunal found that (i) the receivers' claim was neither against Owners nor one in rem (ii) the cargo had been off-spec prior to loading, it held that it was nevertheless Owners' obligation to secure the release of their detained Vessel. In the circumstances however the Tribunal found that the 21 day delay pending provision of security was not unreasonable and the Vessel was not off-hire during this time.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 04th April 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/seatrade-group-nv-v-hakan-agro-dmc0-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-07 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594117901580-AJ1QI5B2M26VNRVXRQ7I/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Seatrade Group N.V. v Hakan Agro D.M.C.0 [2018] “This judgment is the first binding precedent on the question whether the berth "always accessible" warranty in a voyage charterparty covers departure from the berth in addition to entry. In this case a vessel was unable to leave berth due to the damage of a nearby bridge and lock, and Owners claimed damages for detention. Contrasting "reachable on arrival", the Commercial Court found that the "always accessible" warranty covers departure, and allowed the appeal against the award of an experienced QC arbitrator.” Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 28th March 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/bubbles-wine-limited-v-reshat-lusha-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-07 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594117557323-PJUERX9LUD4NZKR09Y61/180321+judge+private+discussion+meeting+counsel.jpg Case Summaries - Bubbles &amp; Wine Limited v Reshat Lusha [2018] “Although the conduct of a judge in meeting one party's Counsel in private and discussing elements of the case was considered "inept", the Court of Appeal found that on the basis of the relevant facts a fair-minded observer would not conclude that the judge's inappropriate conduct could indicate any possibility that he was biased. No submissions were made privately by the Counsel, all the judge's comments were communicated to the other party and the innocuous nature of the conversation gave rise to no inference that the judge would decide the case other than impartially.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 21st March 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jiansu-shagang-group-ltd-v-loki-owning-company-ltd-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-07 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594116950279-M5MDQTIDKV8BLB3S59XL/180314+unnapproved+tc+gtee.jpg Case Summaries - Jiansu Shagang Group Ltd v Loki Owning Company Ltd [2018] “A long-term time charter with a London arbitration clause provided that charterers' obligations were to be guaranteed by JSG. Following repudiation by charterers (later in liquidation), owners pursued their substantial hire and damages claim against JSG in arbitration, the Tribunal, on a preliminary issue, ruling in favour of its own jurisdiction. The Court on a re-hearing under s67, allowed JSG's challenge to the award, finding that the guarantee had been neither approved nor authorised by them. In so finding the Judge acknowledged owners' disappointment, given the Tribunal's intervening substantive award of USD68 million in owners' favour but commented that this could not distort the central factual issue upon which she had ruled.” Christiana Raptaki E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 14th March 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/songa-chemicals-as-v-navig8-chemicals-pool-inc-and-navig8-chemicals-pool-inc-v-glencore-agriculture-bv-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-07 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594116680852-YXGDH67U61H23B9W3YZH/180307+misdelivery+LOI+summary+judgment.jpg Case Summaries - Songa Chemicals AS v Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc and Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc v Glencore Agriculture BV [2018] “Vessel owners Songa, delivered a cargo of edible oil, without production of bills of lading, against (International Group wording) LOIs from its time-charterers, Navig8, requiring delivery to Aavanti or such party as was believed to be or to represent Aavanti. Following delivery to Ruchi supposedly on behalf of Aavanti, Societe Generale claimed to be the unpaid lawful holder of the bills of lading and commenced arbitration misdelivery proceedings against Songa. Pending the outcome, the Commercial Court granted each of Songa and Navig8 immediate and final summary judgment ruling that delivery to Ruchi triggered the respective LOIs, requiring each beneficiary to be indemnified in respect of liability to, or reasonable settlement with Societe Generale.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 07th March 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sea-tank-shipping-as-formerly-known-as-tank-invest-as-v-vinnlustodin-hf-vatryggingafelag-islands-fh-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-07 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594116436549-RL1FDHBR95XFVBQUK5AU/180228+Hague+Rules+article+IV+rule+5+limitation+unit+physical+objects+not+packaged+no+bulk.jpg Case Summaries - Sea Tank Shipping AS (formerly known as Tank Invest AS) v Vinnlustodin HF Vatryggingafelag Islands FH [2018] “The Court of Appeal confirmed that the word "unit" in Article IV Rule 5 of the Hague Rules means a physical item and not a unit of measurement. Therefore, the Hague Rules limitation of liability cannot apply to bulk cargoes (in this case a fish oil cargo) and the carrier could not limit its liability to the (uncontested) amount of £100 per ton. Nor was the carrier assisted by a charterparty term conferring on it "the like privileges and rights and immunities" as Article IV. Without more, this only conferred the same rights as the carrier would have had under Article IV and no more.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 28th February 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sveriges-angfartygs-assurans-forening-the-swedish-club-ors-v-connect-shipping-inc-anor-2013 monthly 0.5 2020-07-07 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1594116133136-QZXDLP99RPMINEIEQZ97/image-asset.png Case Summaries - Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening (the Swedish Club) &amp; Ors v Connect Shipping Inc &amp; Anor [2013] “Following an engine room fire in August 2012, it was not until February 2013 that ship-owners sought to abandon their vessel to Underwriters and claim a CTL. The Court of Appeal confirmed the High Court ruling that despite the delay, the owners had not lost the right to abandon or declare a CTL. Widely divergent repair estimates had been in play and it was legitimate to include in the repair figures costs incurred between incident and Notice of Abandonment and SCOPIC remuneration.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 21st February 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-5/18 monthly 0.5 2020-07-05 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593951087659-3OIOVSE5E59QVEIP0113/180214+.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 5/18 “A time charter clause provided for charterers to reimburse a capped amount for extra insurances incurred by owners "for transit from Yanbu to India"; owners contended that the part of the premium attributable to calls in both places fell outside the cap and was payable on top. The Tribunal held that "transit" here included both port calls and the time in motion in between and so the corresponding premium fell within the cap.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 14th February 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/lukoil-asia-pacific-pte-ltd-v-ocean-tankers-pte-ltd-ocean-neptune-2018 monthly 0.5 2020-07-05 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593950920545-4V8G45WF84578C0PJX9N/180207.jpg Case Summaries - Lukoil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Ocean Tankers (Pte) Ltd (Ocean Neptune) [2018] “A charter on an amended ExxonMobilVOY2005 form contained additional 'LITASCO' clauses providing (cl. 4) for time waiting for orders to count as laytime or demurrage as well as (c1.2) a documentary time bar, discharging charterers from demurrage claims unless presented and supported within 90 days. Owners failed properly to support their demurrage claim in time but argued that the waiting time claim fell outside the time bar. The Commercial Court held that a cl. 4 claim is a demurrage claim and subject to the time bar.” Jason Charalambous E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 07th February 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-4/18 monthly 0.5 2020-07-05 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593950732157-74O1CU8NXYMWPIO5NUH2/180131.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 4/18 “Under a trip time charter, charterers claimed that the vessel was delayed by slow operation of the vessel's cranes although the gear was found in good condition. The technical data were not set out in the charter and the Tribunal, dismissing the claim, found that there was no warranty as to crane speed, nor any breakdowns or breach of maintenance obligations. The Tribunal found also that charterers failed to establish any warranty as to the vessel's speed and consumption at eco speed: owners had merely warranted receipt of builders' information. For that reason, the Tribunal had also declined to order disclosure of previous fixture eco-performance.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 31st January 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-3/18 monthly 0.5 2020-07-05 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593950595340-4HQTLVBCEH7TR7V8X62W/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 3/18 “After tendering NOR under an amended Asbatankvoy charter and waiting some 15 days to load, Owners accepted Charterers' cancellation' as a repudiatory breach and claimed accrued demurrage as well as losses incurred on substitute business. The Tribunal dismissed Charterers' attempt to rely upon a 3 month demurrage time bar running from completion of discharge, ruling that if there was no discharge, there was no time bar. Although Owners' demurrage claim succeeded in full, their damages claim entirely failed and as a result Owners were restricted to an 80% costs recovery.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 24th January 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/unreported-case-in-the-commercial-court-november-december-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-07-05 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593950471522-WWKZJOAA5RP3XIQLNJ9H/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Unreported case in the Commercial Court - November &amp; December 2017 “In a series of public hearings relating to tracing money stolen from a commodity company's bank accounts, the Commercial Court ordered (amongst other things): (i) the issue of a worldwide freezing order against "persons unknown";, (ii) disclosure orders against banks situated abroad for the purpose of tracing money; and (iii) service of documents by a combination of email and online data room and by Facebook. It is believed that this is the first time such orders have been made.” George Arghyrakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 17th January 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-1/18-994-lmln-2 monthly 0.5 2020-07-05 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593950353124-DPYA2SAZLJS7C6N4OKRO/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 1/18 — 994 LMLN 2 “Even when Charterers failed to pay hire on time, Owners' failure to allow the full time provided under an anti-technicality clause meant that their withdrawal was premature and repudiatory. Owners' notice was also defective in that it was not phrased as an ultimatum but as a reminder.” George Arghyrakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 10th January 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/rosgosstrakh-ltd-v-yapi-kredi-finansal-kiralama-ao-anor-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-07-05 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593950225267-ZUTXFLO1LCWNA57V18P8/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Rosgosstrakh Ltd v Yapi Kredi Finansal Kiralama AO &amp; Anor [2017] “A P&I insurer who had paid out under the policy following the sinking in 2010 of the insured vessel, later sought to avoid the policy and reclaim the payment. After the payment the insurer had changed name and identity by restructuring but the proceedings were issued (just before the 6 year limit) in the old name. The Court dismissed the defendants' argument that the mistake was legal (and inexcusable) rather than factual and despite the time bar passing and criticism of the solicitor for not investigating the name change, the Court allowed the substitution of the correct party.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 03rd January 2018 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/glencore-energy-uk-ltd-and-anor-v-freeport-holdings-ltd-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-07-05 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593950018484-NXA4M08A0BIEFS2TXCQS/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Glencore Energy UK Ltd and Anor v Freeport Holdings Ltd [2017] “Following a fire on board a laden tanker (possibly started deliberately by the Chief Engineer), cargo owners Glencore sought recovery from shipowners for their proportion of salvage (and costs) and challenged shipowners' entitlement to GA contribution. The Court ruled on preliminary issues as to barratry and Article IV r2(b) (fire) and (q) (other cause) of the Hague Visby Rules. Barratry required a deliberate and wrongful act prejudicing owners or cargo; the wrongful element must involve something generally recognised as a crime or a deliberate or reckless breach of duty to shipowners; if therefore the C/E was suffering from a clinical mental disorder, the act would not be barratrous. However, Art IV r2(b) can still apply to a deliberately started or barratrous fire, although not r2(q).” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 27th December 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/transgrain-shipping-singapore-pte-ltd-v-yangtze-navigation-hong-kong-ltd-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-07-05 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593949862065-ZGIX0DBG5XX8M5BZE27H/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Transgrain Shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Yangtze Navigation (Hong Kong) Ltd [2017] “In interpreting the meaning of the word "act" in clause 8(d) of the ICA (apportionment of liability on a 50-50% basis unless the claim arose out of the act or neglect of one of the parties), the Court of Appeal held that clause 8 is concerned with causation rather than culpability. The critical question is: does the claim "in fact" arise out of the act, operation or state of affairs described? It does not depend upon legal or moral culpability. In the present case, prolonged stay at anchor damaged the cargo and Charterers had to share liability irrespective of whether ordering the vessel to wait at anchor was culpable or not.” Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 20th December 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/mt-cape-bonny-tankschiffahrts-gmbh-co-kg-v-ping-an-property-and-casualty-insurance-co-of-china-ltd-beijing-branch-the-cape-bonny-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-07-05 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593949363471-M262UQ1I9CW61TGHI642/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - MT "Cape Bonny" Tankschiffahrts GMBH &amp; Co KG v Ping An Property And Casualty Insurance Co Of China Ltd, Beijing Branch (The "Cape Bonny") [2017] “The owners of a tanker were refused contribution to general average of some USD 2.1 million as the engine breakdown suffered was considered to be the result of an actionable fault in failing to make the vessel seaworthy. The failure of a crankshaft main bearing was caused by a damaged filter failing to remove harmful particles from the lub oil. Deflection readings had earlier indicated that something was wrong, but they were ignored.” Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 13th December 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/trafigura-beheer-bv-v-renbrandt-ltd-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-07-05 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593949068103-9VQX8WHGZYXRLGNY61Z0/171206.jpg Case Summaries - Trafigura Beheer BV V Renbrandt Ltd [2017] “More than 7 years after delivery, the buyer of a consignment of gasoil filed a complaint in Nigeria, alleging that it was "off-spec". The sale contract was subject to English law and jurisdiction and the seller sought a declaration of non-liability from the English Commercial Court, on a summary basis. The Court rejected the buyer's argument that the claim for a declaration was time-barred, ruling that there is no accrual date for a claim that a person has not broken a contract. The Court also noted that to hold otherwise would strip the seller of protection against an otherwise time-barred claim being pursued in a non-contractual jurisdiction.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 06th December 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/dana-gas-pjsc-v-dana-gas-sukuk-ltd-ors-2017-ewhc-2928-comm monthly 0.5 2020-07-05 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593948854016-OXKG4WLMJILZSNVB38A7/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Dana Gas PJSC v Dana Gas Sukuk Ltd &amp; Ors [2017] “The repayment of a loan is often accompanied by an increase in the amount repaid, "called interest by those who think it lawful and usury by those who do not". The English Court found that an agreement governed by English Law remained valid even though it would offend against the principles of Shari'a law in the country where it was to be performed.” Asli Erkli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 29th November 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/glencore-agriculture-bv-formerly-glencore-grain-bv-v-conqueror-holdings-limited-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-07-05 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593948520146-BQIH8PTNHKMISEF0PWR6/171122.jpg Case Summaries - Glencore Agriculture B.V. (formerly Glencore Grain B.V.) v Conqueror Holdings Limited [2017] “The first Glencore knew of an arbitration claim against it was when it received the Tribunal's Award. The Commercial Court set aside the Award, finding that neither the arbitration notice nor subsequent documentation had been effectively served upon Glencore. All notices and documents had been served by email to a junior employee who had some involvement in operational post-fixture matters, but no involvement in the handling of the dispute and no actual or ostensible authority to accept service of proceedings. Mr Justice Popplewell noted that whilst service by email is capable of being an "effective means" within the meaning of s.76(3) of the Arbitration Act, there is no principle that service by email should be available in most cases; service on a particular individual in a particular case may not be effective.” Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 22nd November 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/tonicstar-limited-v-1-allianz-insurance-plc-2-sirius-international-insurance-corporation-publ-london-branch-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-07-05 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593948180695-0REF0W12BB6W6W0B1B3B/171115.jpg Case Summaries - Tonicstar Limited v (1) Allianz Insurance PLC; (2) Sirius International Insurance Corporation (PUBL) (London Branch) [2017] “An arbitration clause requiring the tribunal to "consist of persons with not less than ten years' experience of insurance and reinsurance" requires first-hand experience in the trade or business of insurance and reinsurance; legal experience alone will not suffice. A Queen's Counsel with over ten years of experience in insurance and reinsurance law was removed by the Commercial Court on the grounds that he was not qualified to act as an arbitrator in that particular arbitration reference, and the respondents were given 30 days within which to appoint a new arbitrator.” Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 15th November 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sino-channel-asia-ltd-v-dana-shipping-trading-pte-singapore-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-07-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593624187735-57Z0B5DAO083BWSGXM8G/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Sino Channel Asia Ltd. -v- Dana Shipping &amp; Trading PTE Singapore [2017] “In this most unusual case, service of a notice of arbitration on a party's agent was deemed valid, the agent having implied and ostensible authority to accept such service, because the principal took "no part, no role and no interest in the negotiation or performance" of the contract.” George Arghyrakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 08th November 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/arbitration-28/17-2017-989-lmln-2 monthly 0.5 2020-07-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593624038009-D1M2FFQE22CMUP8Q4R83/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Arbitration 28/17 (2017) 989 LMLN 2 “Owners settled a cargo claim in respect of shortage, wet and other damage to bagged rice and claimed a full indemnity from Time Charterers on the basis that the bills, incorporating a sub-charter, had exposed them to more onerous terms than the t/c. The Tribunal declined to hold that the material terms of the bills had exposed Owners to this cargo claim and instead applied the Interclub Agreement 50% apportionments with each party bearing its own costs of the reference.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 01st November 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/cssa-chartering-and-shipping-services-sa-v-mitsui-osk-lines-ltd-the-pacific-voyager-2017-ewhc-2579-comm-18-october-2017-popplewell-j monthly 0.5 2020-07-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593623744359-KWA08ZSIA795DYM3GOK0/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - CSSA Chartering and Shipping Services SA v Mitsui O.S.K Lines Ltd (the "Pacific Voyager" [2017] “Dealing with an unexplored corner last week the Commercial Court ruled that the Owners' obligation to proceed with "utmost despatch" or "use all convenient speed" will extend to cases where there is no provision as to ERTL or ETA, but merely a cancelling date. The laycan will still indicate the period of time within which the approach voyage should commence so that the Vessel arrives at the loading port by the cancelling date. “ Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 25th October 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/pan-united-shipping-pte-ltd-v-cummins-sales-and-service-singapore-ltd-high-court-chan-seng-onn-j-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-07-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593622448007-28M2VD0E05QVTSJK5I4R/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Pan-United Shipping Pte Ltd v Cummins Sales and Service Singapore Ltd — High Court (Chan Seng Onn J) [2017] “A shiprepairer's standard terms (referred to in its quotation for engine overhaul) prevailed over the terms of its tug-owner customer (referred to in the latter's purchase order, issued after its verbal go-ahead). Nevertheless, the shiprepairer's clause excluding liability for consequential loss (and limiting recovery to the value of work) neither precluded nor limited the direct losses claimed as a result of damage sustained during testing, namely engine repair, substitute tonnage and loss of use.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 18th October 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/dsa-consultancy-fzc-v-owner-and/or-demise-charterer-of-the-vessel-eurohope-high-court-chua-lee-ming-j-31-august-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-07-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593619999606-XHMWG5JEVS6QGK0WP7X0/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - DSA Consultancy (FZC) v Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the Vessel "Eurohope" — High Court (Chua Lee Ming J) — 31 August 2017 “The High Court recently clarified that under Singaporean law vessel arrest for the purpose of retaining security in support of foreign proceedings is not available. Charterers pursuing litigation in England were ordered to return the security obtained as the arrest was declared an abuse of process. The Owners' damages claim for wrongful arrest was dismissed as the Charterers' behaviour did not amount to bad faith or malice, nevertheless, Charterers were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings. This is a significant difference from the position in England where courts have the power to order the arrest of property in assistance to foreign proceedings.” Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 18th October 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/union-marine-classification-services-llc-v-1-the-government-of-the-union-of-comoros-and-2-bruce-harris-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-07-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593618352378-SAQDB2Z4CQUXNQN3I6UU/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Union Marine Classification Services LLC v (1) The Government of the Union of Comoros and (2) Bruce Harris [2017] “In a contract for the provision of flag registration services to the Government of Comoros, an experienced arbitrator found the Government liable for repudiatory breach owing to an unjustified termination of the services contract, stating however that the repudiation had not been accepted as such. Having overlooked the Government's counterclaim, he issued a corrective award holding the contractor liable for outstanding monthly payments. In a subsequent award the arbitrator held that the contract had indeed been terminated. The Court upheld that latest award holding (on the facts of that case) that his statement in the earlier award did not constitute a "finding" such as to preclude a subsequent decision that the repudiation had been accepted. Naturally, the request for the arbitrator's removal was rejected with the Court commenting on his significant experience and on his frank concessions where matters had been overlooked.” Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 11th October 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-26/17-2017-987-lmln-3 monthly 0.5 2020-07-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593617935494-R4CUNDPTQLIBKWZLVXSB/171004.2.png Case Summaries - London Arbitration 26/17 (2017) 987 LMLN 3 “After a vessel had served NOR triggering laytime and then demurrage, Owners accepted Charterers' admitted lack of cargo as a repudiatory breach; they claimed the accrued demurrage of some 15 days plus the difference between the gross profit they would have made on the nominal fixture and their actual gross profit from a substitute voyage. Included in the calculation of nominal profits was further demurrage for some 3 days needed for loading. The Tribunal disallowed this, finding that Owners were confusing the nominal and the actual.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 04th October 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-25/17-2017-986-lmln-3 monthly 0.5 2020-07-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593617503178-K1IB6F4F3CQ7I8SDBVMC/171004.1.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 25/17 (2017) 986 LMLN 3 “A time charter on the NYPE Form provided for a trip within the Far East. An additional clause dealt with port stays over 30 days and exonerated owners from performance claims, entitled charterers to ask for hull cleaning at their expense and in any event required charterers to redeliver the vessel in the same condition as on delivery. The vessel spent more than 30 days at the discharge port in Lumut, Malaysia. During this time a follow-on fixture had been arranged by owners with delivery d.o.p. Lumut. The Tribunal agreed with owners that the vessel's hull became fouled at Lumut (and not before, as argued by charterers) and this caused her to underperform on the next fixture. The Tribunal disagreed that the fouling was 'wear and tear' and found charterers in breach of their redelivery obligations, particularly the express one in the prolonged port stay clause. Owners were awarded as damages the performance claim settlement paid to the subsequent charterers plus the cost of hull cleaning later carried out (Charterers having failed to request or agree to hull cleaning).” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 04th October 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-24/17-2017-986-lmln-2 monthly 0.5 2020-07-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593616604218-25KRGZQOS4SWYSK3CZWN/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 24/17 (2017) 986 LMLN 2 “A newbuild vessel was bareboat chartered on the Barecon 2001 form (with addenda, including an option to purchase) for a period of 10 years. By a ship management agreement (`SMA') of the same date on the Shipman 2009 form, charterers engaged owners' management services for the vessel. Charterers, as they were entitled to do without cause, terminated the SMA on notice. The c/p contained no equivalent express termination provision. Despite accepting that c/p and SMA were a `package deal' and that hire, management fees and option purchase price were related, the Tribunal declined to grant owners a declaration that the c/p contained an implied term that it was co-terminous with the SMA. Such a term was not needed to give effect to the deal, nor was it necessary either to make the arrangements work or as a matter of commercial common sense.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 27th September 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-23/17-2017-986-lmln-1 monthly 0.5 2020-07-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593616331097-FK28S9WWRBTQKG5CVWA2/170927.1.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 23/17 (2017) 986 LMLN 1 “A Vessel chartered on the BPVoy3 form was delayed in reaching her load berth due to the presence of another vessel, detained there by the authorities (and unable to continue to load or to move) following the rupture of the loading hose and an oil spill seven days earlier. Charterers sought to rely on the half demurrage 'force majeure' provision in Clause 21 in respect of the ensuing eight day wait, however neither an oil spill, nor resulting suspension of loading were listed exceptions and the Tribunal found that hose rupture was not a qualifying 'breakdown'. Whilst the detention, even of another vessel, qualified as 'arrest' within the Clause, the Tribunal found that in the present circumstances, the cause of the delay was 'within the reasonable control of the Charterers' (as it occurred during loading of the other vessel) making Clause 21 inapplicable.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 27th September 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/omv-petrom-sa-v-glencore-international-ag-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-07-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593615605048-H966NBVNVANDPJB9JDT2/170920.jpg Case Summaries - OMV Petrom SA v Glencore International AG [2017] “Petrom claimed against Glencore in respect of the latter's sale of 'counterfeit' crude oil cargoes. Glencore had relied on untruthful testimony and had declined to engage in settlement attempts, including a 'Part 36' offer by Petrom, which was significantly bettered by the Court's award. Although the Court awarded enhanced interest, Petrom appealed, seeking the maximum allowable amount, namely 10.5% both on damages and on costs. Despite warning that appeals against the exercise of the judge's discretion are to be rare, the Chancellor agreed, explaining that such interest was not just compensatory but could reflect the Court's disapproval of a party's conduct (here described as 'deplorable if not outrageous') and its encouragement of settlements.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-22/17 monthly 0.5 2020-07-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593615342598-6OZK8MZ884R7B47A9YQY/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 22/17 “An amended Asbatankvoy relieved Charterers from "all liability in respect of any claims....unless such claim has been presented to Charterers in writing with supporting documents within 30 days from completion of discharge...". NORs from load ports had been provided after loading; Owners' demurrage claim and other supporting documents followed later, within the deadline. Cumulatively the material was sufficient to support the claim. The Tribunal held that the Clause did not require simultaneous submission of claim and supporting material, thus rejecting Charterers' time-bar defence.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 13th September 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-21/17 monthly 0.5 2020-07-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593613922075-DZLJTL8LTYR5MGY7I8G8/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 21/17 “Following the conclusion of a Shelltime 4 charter for 12 months at USD70,000 per day, the freight market collapsed (tonnage scarcity ending with the announcement of the lifting of Iran sanctions). Charterers struggled to find profitable employment for the vessel, failed to pay hire and after 3 months sought 'cancellation' requesting Owners to find substitute employment. The Tribunal agreed that Owners rightfully accepted Charterers' conduct as a repudiatory breach terminating the Charter and awarded as damages the difference between Owners' earnings had the charter run for its full term, with bunkers paid for, and their actual sporadic earnings in that period on the spot market. The post-contract lifting of sanctions had no bearing on damages, and there was no 'accelerated receipt' of funds meriting any discount.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 06th September 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/dainford-navigation-inc-v-pdvsa-petroleo-sa-moscow-stars-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-07-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593613536345-6ZJFO8SC5G12Q4G24VH6/170830.jpg Case Summaries - Dainford Navigation Inc. v PDVSA Petroleo SA "Moscow Stars" [2017] “Time Charterers, the Venezuelan state-owned PDVSA, ordered the vessel to load their crude oil cargo in Venezuela for delivery in the Bahamas (although subsequently vessel and cargo diverted to Curacao). As a consequence of Charterers' failures to pay hire in full, Owners notified the exercise of their charterparty lien over the cargo, commenced London arbitration and sought an order from the High Court for sale of the cargo pursuant to s.44 (2) (d) of the Arbitration Act. In granting the order, the Court found that there was the necessary nexus between cargo and proceedings (namely the exercise of a contractual lien over the defendants' cargo in order to secure the claim in arbitration). The Court made no finding as to what the position would be had the cargo been owned by a third party. It is also significant that the order was to take effect in a Dutch overseas territory, giving Owners access to EU judgment enforcement.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 30th August 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/knight-r-on-the-application-of-v-secretary-of-state-for-transport-ors-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-07-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593613370281-ZJG797OZ3857EOJR7Z3Z/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Knight, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport &amp; Ors [2017] “A diver who, in the period 2007 — 2011, had recovered items of value from various wrecks up to 200 years old, claimed salvage reward; the diver had not given timely notice to the Receiver of Wreck, who subsequently declined to make any award of salvage. The diver sought judicial review of that decision, in 2016. The Court found that the diver's claims were time barred, as the relevant salvage operations had terminated by 2012 so the 2 year time bar under the Merchant Shipping Act had expired in 2014.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 23rd August 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/mediterranean-shipping-company-v-sotramon-limited-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-07-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593598376467-LK2RPH3AFFPPME9N5HDI/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Mediterranean Shipping Company v Sotramon Limited [2017] “By a WI dated 4 August 1999 MSC contracted with Sotramon for the carriage of a crane from Port Louis to Felixtowe. The bill contained an English law/ High Court in London jurisdiction clause and a limitation on MSC's liability. On outturn, part of the crane was said to be missing therefore in 2000 Sotramon commenced proceedings in Mauritius, based on tort, claiming damages for the missing part and some additional liabilities incurred. Those proceedings underwent various challenges, MSC contending that the claim should have been pursued in contract not tort, and in London, with the Mauritian court of appeal agreeing in 2013. The matter eventually came before the UK Privy Council who upheld the first instance judgment in Mauritius, namely that Sotramon was at liberty to pursue its tortious claim there. Presumably the matter will now proceed there, nearly 20 years after events.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 16th August 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-20/17 monthly 0.5 2020-07-01 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593598021663-9L9X5K45YGTHUGPIOAUB/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 20/17 “A time charter provided for a period of "minimum 4/maximum 6 months". Charterers, who wished to redeliver later, relied on the fixture recap which had specified a pro forma fixture "amended logically as per these main terms"; the pro forma had been for "a period of 6 months....always 15 days more or less in charterers' option." The Tribunal held that "minimum 4/maximum 6 months" was a main term and thus replaced the duration provision in the pro forma in its entirety.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 09th August 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/aspen-underwriting-ltd-ors-v-kairos-shipping-ltd-ors-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593540761956-WMJLQKA31QXL8YMNY0IX/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Aspen Underwriting Ltd &amp; Ors v Kairos Shipping Ltd &amp; Ors [2017] “Pursuant to a settlement agreement, H&M underwriters paid sums to its insured's Netherlands-based Bank, following the loss of the Vessel `Atlantik Confidence'. The insurers have now sought to recover those sums on the basis that the Vessel had been deliberately cast away. The Court found that the exclusive (English) jurisdiction clauses in the policy and in the settlement agreement did not bind the Bank. However, in so far as underwriters' claim was based on a tort (namely the insured's misrepresentation on its own and the Bank's behalf as to the cause of the loss) that tort was committed in England, giving the Court jurisdiction over the Bank.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 02nd August 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-19/17 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593540597159-ASIUOTKSZ0MEXTWXWIXA/170726.jpg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 19/17 “The Tribunal ruled that disponent owners could only recover from time charterers 50% of a cargo claim reimbursement and costs liability paid to head owners. The cargo claim (condensation damage to steels) arose not just through loading and stowing but also due to other reasons including the multiplicity of loading ports and the differing temperatures and conditions at those ports. The claim therefore fell under ICA paragraph 8(d) ("all other..."). The Tribunal declined to hold that it arose through charterers' act or neglect (so as to apply a 100% apportionment) particularly because the time charter specified the type of cargo, the range of ports and the time of year.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 26th July 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/w-nagel-a-firm-v-pluczenik-diamond-company-nv-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593538942578-CBDJ1JQOJN8007E39PL6/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - W Nagel (a firm) v Pluczenik Diamond Company NV [2017] “A prime diamond trader terminated the agency contract with its long-standing 'London Sights' broker on the grounds that the latter's role had become redundant. The Court found the principal in breach of the fixed-term agreement and awarded the agent compensation being (a) earnings during a reasonable notice period and (b) loss of net future income stream from commissions. Diamonds are not forever, as the learned Judge observed.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 19th July 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/vito-sa-v-beta-renowable-group-sa-2017 monthly 0.5 2023-08-29 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593947911902-J8NP7T7B7EFKSC3MM7FS/170712.jpg Case Summaries - Vitol SA v Beta Renowable Group SA [2017] “Beta indicated an inability to provide biofuel to Vitol under a FOB contract; Vitol then simply failed to nominate a vessel in time, later sending a notice of contractual termination. Vitol contended that its failure to nominate was tantamount to acceptance of Beta's renunciatory breach, entitling it to claim damages. Beta argued that its obligation to deliver was conditional upon timely nomination. The Court concluded that Vitol's conduct was not sufficiently clear and unequivocal as to constitute acceptance of a renunciatory breach. However, in the circumstances the obligation to nominate was "stripped of its purpose and otiose" and could not amount to a pre-condition. Therefore, Beta was not relieved of its obligations and Vitol was entitled to damages.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 12th July 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-18/17 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593538758371-1SIF85F4XS0SVHPIX5ZO/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 18/17 “Pursuant to voyage charterers' orders, owners interrupted loading operations and later claimed additional load port expenses. The Tribunal rejected owners' arguments that i) charterers' instruction were uncontractual because charterers were exercising their right to use the allowed laytime as they wished and ii) owners were entitled to be indemnified for expenses incurred for following charterers' orders because it was a voyage charter so expenses lie where they fall. Nevertheless, the Tribunal awarded owners reimbursement of additional load port expenses on the basis of an inferred oral agreement between the parties.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 05th July 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/globalia-business-travel-sau-formerly-travelplan-sau-of-spain-v-fulton-shipping-inc-of-panama-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593538485346-Z773XLHVAAGLJ1FUV69T/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Globalia Business Travel S.A.U. (formerly TravelPlan S.A.U.) of Spain v Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama [2017] “After charterers' repudiation of a time charter of a cruise ship, owners later sold the vessel to a third party for more than US$23m. The Arbitrator found that the sale was made in mitigation of losses as the ship was valued at some US$7m at the time the vessel should have been redelivered. Therefore, he disallowed owners' damages. The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court ruling that owners' benefit was not legally caused by the breach of the charterparty. The breach could have been the occasion but not the legal cause for the sale, which remains a commercial decision made at the owners' own risk and the exercise of owners' proprietary right which they enjoy independent of the charterparty.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 28th June 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-16/17 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593538347639-M87RVWH4D0VE9MY0IABB/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 16/17 “A prolonged port stay clause in a time charter (20 running days, tropical waters) both protected Owners against underperformance claims and required Charterers to clean the hull; the Tribunal considered that the Clause still operated even though the Vessel had not remained in exactly the same place during the relevant stay. Further, it was sufficient to establish 'fouling directly resulting' from the stay, that the Vessel did not underperform after the cleaning.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 21st June 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/virgin-media-ltd-v-joseph-whelan-t/a-m-j-fish-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593537892942-73WT36LNFDTQYSU2FAAA/170614.jpg Case Summaries - Virgin Media LTD V Joseph Whelan T/A M &amp;J Fish [2017] “An alleged tort (damage to sub-marine cable by a fishing trawler) occurring outside the UK's Territorial Waters but within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) was not within the jurisdiction of the English Court, pursuant to Article 7 of the re-cast Judgments Regulation. An earlier case - tonocophillips' - could be distinguished as that involved damage to an exploration installation (there, an oil platform) for which UNCLOS confers special jurisdictional rights.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 14th June 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/london-arbitration-17/17 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593537566065-45JT172994JNAUM1T3UT/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - London Arbitration 17/17 “The demurrage rate net of commission was used by an arbitral tribunal to calculate damages for detention, even though the Charterparty did not contain any reference to commission in the event of detention. Awarding damages on the basis of the gross demurrage rate was not deemed appropriate as Owners would have only received the net amount had they been paid demurrage for the delay.” Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 07th June 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/smith-v-the-ross-revenge-qbd-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593537315097-XIRO83EWWU88CZC4SAFG/170531.jpg Case Summaries - Smith v The "Ross Revenge" — QBD [2017] “A vessel once operating as pirate radio station "Radio Caroline" was considered to be abandoned by the owner despite absence of an express statement by the owner to that end. Failure to engage in a court process, and a clear absence of interest in the vessel over a sustained period of time, led the Court to infer that owner had abandoned its rights of ownership. The claimant 'caretaker' was able to become owner of the vessel since no other party, including the Crown, had asserted a better right.” E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 31st May 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/pan-petroleum-me-ltd-v-yinka-folawiyo-petroleum-co-ltd-ors-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593537081984-54XS07CDMMC6VNDZUTGR/170524.jpg Case Summaries - Pan Petroleum AJE Ltd v Yinka Folawiyo Petroleum Co Ltd &amp; Ors [2017] “An agreement for the operation of Nigerian oil wells contained a London arbitration clause and the High Court issued an injunction in support of the arbitration, restraining the defendants from taking certain default steps under the agreement; the Court ruled that default steps had been taken, in breach of the injunction, and held the defendants to be in Contempt of Court.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 24th May 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/gard-shipping-as-v-clearlake-shipping-pte-ltd-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593536867010-BML55UFYHEP9609H94RT/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Gard Shipping AS v Clearlake Shipping Pte Ltd [2017] “A Charterparty on an amended BPVoy4 form provided an enhanced and escalating demurrage rate in the event of revised voyage orders, including stopping and waiting. In construing the relevant clauses, the Court held that the enhanced rate was not triggered in the absence of a clear instruction, prior to NOR, to stop and wait; a passive failure to give orders, post-NOR, even where such failure was driven by commercial reasons, was not a trigger.” Alan Frazer E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 17th May 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/gard-marine-and-energy-ltd-anor-v-china-national-chartering-company-ltd-anor-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593536598000-SVBFNVOR3A46F337NT18/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Gard Marine and Energy Ltd &amp; Anor v China National Chartering Company Ltd &amp; Anor [2017] “The rare concurrence of two individually not uncommon events (strong northerly gale and long waves) was an "abnormal occurrence" such that charterers were not in breach of the C/P safe port warranty (even if each event separately may have been characteristic of the port). Further, and in any event, the C/P joint insurance clause excluded rights of recourse between the parties, each of whom had agreed to look to insurers for indemnification rather than to each other in the event of total loss.” Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 10th May 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sam-purpose-as-v-transnav-purpose-navigation-ltd-rev-2-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593536309617-N0EO73HNUH5CWQ1048J7/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Sam Purpose AS v Transnav Purpose Navigation Ltd (Rev 2) [2017] “In breach of a London arbitration clause, charterers commenced substantive proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction in addition to arresting the vessel as security for their claim. The English Court had granted the owners (ex-parte) an anti-suit injunction, in accordance with normal principles. However, the Court later declined to grant further injunctive relief or order discontinuance of the foreign proceedings (including the 'tainted' arrest) in circumstances where charterers had in the meantime applied to the foreign court for a stay of the substantive proceedings. In other words, charterers had cured the historic breach by the time of the present hearing so no further injunctive relief was appropriate.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 03rd May 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/teras-offshore-pte-ltd-v-teras-cargo-transport-america-llc-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593535997270-8SH7851GGISI63AUOHM1/image-asset.png Case Summaries - <strong><em></em>Teras Offshore Pte Ltd v Teras Cargo Transport (America) LLC [2017]</strong> “A party relying on a “pay when paid” provision to withhold payment to its sub-contractor had the burden of proof. The main contractor in a project for the construction of LNG gas plants, was held liable to pay its sub-contractor (who had provided tug, barge and other services to the value of USD28m) as it had failed to show that it had not been paid by the employer, or used all available means to obtain payment.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 26th April 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/cruise-and-maritime-services-international-ltd-v-navigators-underwriting-agency-ltd-the-marco-polo-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593535238254-C6OW3Q66UVAVEUA5U0UY/170419.jpg Case Summaries - Cruise And Maritime Services International Ltd v Navigators Underwriting Agency Ltd The "Marco Polo" [2017] “After the outbreak of norovirus on-board, the Claimant cruise line agents sought an indemnity from Charterers' Liability insurers for payments to passengers following curtailment of the voyage. The Court found that the Claimant was not a contracting carrier under the Athens Convention and instead passengers' claims lay against the Tour Operators with whom they had a contractual relationship. The Claimant, therefore, had incurred "no losses costs or expenses as Charterer", money having been refunded to passengers for commercial and reputational reasons only.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 19th April 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/2017-972-lmln-4-london-arbitration-12/17 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593534721063-3H7Q4CJ0071D9A0KVECW/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - (2017) 972 LMLN 4— London Arbitration 12/17 “A Tribunal constituted pursuant to a 'Law and Arbitration' C/P provision ruled against Charterers' challenge to its jurisdiction, holding that a competing clause referring to Egyptian Courts and law was less comprehensive than the arbitration provision. It was also considered that Charterers waived the right to challenge arbitration by participating in the proceedings.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 12th April 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/associated-british-ports-v-tata-steel-uk-ltd-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593534453468-9BT6IVI4WD29D5OKO80E/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Associated British Ports v Tata Steel UK Ltd [2017] “The arbitration clause contained in a licence agreement between ABP and Tata was held to be valid according to s. 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The agreement provided for renegotiation in case of "major... change in circumstances" and arbitration in case parties failed to agree on new terms. The Court held that the arbitration clause was sufficiently certain to be binding. “ Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 05th April 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/kyokuyo-co-ltd-and-ap-moller-maersk-a/s-trading-as-maersk-line-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593533929335-PAVECWT8M2J918TQVC5S/170329.jpg Case Summaries - Kyokuyo Co Ltd and A.P. Moller - Maersk A/S trading as "Maersk Line" [2017] “The Court stated that the Hague-Visby Rules apply not only to contracts of carriage covered by bills of lading but also when waybills are issued instead. The Court also held that Article IV.5(c) of the Hague-Visby Rules does not require enumeration of the cargo inside a container, pallet or similar article of transport "as packed", being sufficient that the number of units or packages is exactly stated in the bill. Here the cargo consisted of unpackaged tuna loins identified as "units" for the purposes of the Rules.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 29th March 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/marathon-asset-management-llp-and-another-v-james-seddon-qrs-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-27 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593281550801-0RZA56663RI19EE0GSZS/170322.jpg Case Summaries - Marathon Asset Management LLP and Another v James Seddon &amp; Qrs [2017] “An illustration of the principle that a claimant recovering only nominal damages has really 'lost so that the Court will approach costs on the basis that the defendant is really the successful party; in this case the claimant was required to pay a percentage of the defendants' costs plus interest at 2% above base rate, from the time solicitors' fees were paid.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 22nd March 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/nautical-challenge-ltd-v-evergreen-marine-uk-ltd-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593533465718-R3EEWUUFQO02VHDF1GR0/170315+admiralty+responsibility+collision+proper+lookout+safe+speed.jpg Case Summaries - Nautical Challenge Ltd V Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd [2017] “The Admiralty Court ruled that a vessel exiting the channel (of a UAE port) bore 80% responsibility for a collision with an entering vessel. The former had failed to navigate on the starboard side of the channel, to keep a proper lookout or develop a safe speed or take avoiding action. The latter, although it failed to keep a proper aural lookout, nevertheless maintained a safe speed and took immediate avoiding action. ” Angeliki Georgouli E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 15th March 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/2017-972-lmln-2-london-arbitration-9/17 monthly 0.5 2020-06-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593281319710-EICOGECV6GAR2J4T1FHS/170308.jpg Case Summaries - (2017) 972 LMLN 2— London Arbitration 9/17 “After discharge operations in Chittagong were interrupted for 6.62 days due to a strike by barge labourers, it was held that laytime continued to run in full during the strike even though Owners did not provide notice of the strike to Charterers as required by the General Strike Clause (Gencon 94), since both Owners and Charterers were fully aware of the strike's existence.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 08th March 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/su-aka-hsin-chi-su-su-hsin-chi-and-nobu-morimoto-v-clarksons-platou-futures-ltd-anor-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-27 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593276547753-E2E9XQMU96Z5WQ44AR67/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Su (aka Hsin Chi Su, Su Hsin Chi and Nobu Morimoto) v Clarksons Platou Futures Ltd &amp; Anor [2017] “Court holds claim is time barred since the cause of action arose more than 6 years from any breach of contract and/or 3 year from knowledge necessary for bringing an action in negligence under s. A4A of the Limitation Act 1980.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 01st March 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sinocore-international-co-ltd-v-rbrg-trading-uk-limited-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-27 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593276195463-OW5J6DR4JR2UP6GLJDRO/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Sinocore International Co Ltd v RBRG Trading (UK) Limited [2017] “Sinocore obtained an order from the English Court allowing the enforcement of a foreign, New York Convention arbitral award against the defendant UK company. The defendant challenged the order on the grounds that pursuant to the Arbitration Act, public policy rendered the award unenforceable, as forged bills of lading were involved in the transaction underlying it. The Court dismissed the challenge as the defendant's liability had been ascertained under the lawful sale contract, irrespective of any other tainted transaction (i.e. forged bills).” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 22nd February 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/navalmar-uk-ltd-v-kale-maden-hammaddeler-sanayi-ve-ticart-the-mv-arundel-castle-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-27 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1593275993633-0N1MCM0YDUO23JU2Y5U3/170215.jpg Case Summaries - Navalmar UK Ltd v Kale Maden Hammaddeler Sanayi Ve Ticart ("The MV Arundel Castle") [2017] “The Court held that in defining "port limits", the arrived ship test used in the Johanna Oldendorff (vessel at disposal of the charterer and then geographical position) still serves as the test at common law but that the parties are also free to define this area.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 15th February 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/lmaa-terms-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-18 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1592476670252-ISPYU1Q0SQMD3ADHAATF/170208.jpg Case Summaries - LMAA TERMS 2017 “Among the new changes adopted is the addition of paragraph 11 which addresses the appointment of a sole arbitrator where there has been a failure to comply with an arbitration agreement for arbitration by a sole arbitrator. In particular, if within 14 days of one party calling for arbitration, the parties have not agreed upon a sole arbitrator, then either party may apply in writing for the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the President of the LMAA. These new terms are in contrast to the procedure currently in place, which is governed by the Arbitration Act 1996. The Act calls for the parties to jointly appoint a sole arbitrator not later than 28 days after service of a request in writing by either party. If there is no agreement, then any party to the arbitration agreement may apply to the court, which would then exercise its powers under the Act to make the appointment. The new LMAA terms will apply to arbitration proceedings commencing on or after 1 May 2017.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 08th February 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/bunge-sa-v-huaya-maritime-corporation-of-the-marshall-islands-anor-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-18 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1592476177533-4HHZO6DP3VZM5YPBFUW2/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Bunge SA v Huaya Maritime Corporation of the Marshall Islands &amp; Anor [2017] “After being unable to enforce a London arbitration award against the respondent company, the claimant obtained several Court disclosure orders against the respondent in relation to its assets and ultimately, a Contempt of Court order; due to the deliberate non-compliance by the person controlling the respondent, the Court made an order against him personally, imposing an 18-month prison sentence.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 1st February 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/silver-dry-bulk-company-ltd-v-homer-hulbert-maritime-company-ltd-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-18 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1592475783827-5VK90IV3CR53HBWY63MV/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Silver Dry Bulk Company Ltd v Homer Hulbert Maritime Company Ltd [2017] “Following the sale of a Capesize bulk carrier and the dissolution of the single-purpose selling entity, the claimant buyer purported to commence arbitration against the seller and sought a declaration from the Court that the arbitral tribunal had been validly constituted. Despite acknowledging that the claimant buyer had a "good arguable case" on the substantive claim, the Court declined to recognize that the arbitral tribunal had been validly constituted, since one of the parties was not in existence so as to be capable of being arbitrated against.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 25th January 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/michael-wilson-partners-ltd-v-sinclair-anor-2017 monthly 0.5 2020-06-18 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1592475522998-UTV4LJMJARIJFEIMWDKV/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Michael Wilson &amp; Partners Ltd v Sinclair &amp; Anor [2017] “The Court of Appeal reversed a High Court order which had struck out a claim for abuse of process. The claimant had made a High Court claim against various defendants in respect of a matter already decided against it in an arbitration it brought against another. The High Court held that it was an abuse of process to advance by 'collateral attack' the same allegations already rejected by the arbitrators. The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the high threshold for abuse of process had not been met: the parties to the Court and arbitration proceedings were different; there were no qualifying 'special circumstances'; no manifest unfairness to the defendants or double vexation of a party and nothing to offend against the spirit of the issue estoppel rule.“ Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 18th January 2017 http://www.bailii.orgiew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/3.html https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/brightside-group-ltd-ors-v-rsm-uk-audit-llp-anor-2017-ewhc-6-09-january-2017-baker-j monthly 0.5 2020-06-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1592308443559-J3TR7C1P48M9ZBBR6QMI/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - Brightside Group Ltd &amp; Ors v RSM UK Audit LLP &amp; Anor (2017) “Shortly before the expiry of the time bar, the Claimants issued but did not serve their Claim Form (which had a validity of 4 months); the Defendants tried to shorten that period by a notice under CPR7.7 calling for service within 14 days. Despite the Claimants narrowly missing the deadline, the Court declined to dismiss the claim as the Claimants had made proper efforts to serve, and the Defendants had suffered no prejudice by the short delay.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 11th January 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/2016-966-lmln-1-london-arbitration-27/16 monthly 0.5 2020-06-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1592306897623-6LYB0L1VSO2YZPMEK66W/170104.jpg Case Summaries - (2016) 966 LMLN 1— London Arbitration 27/16 “It was held that pleadings containing negotiations between Charterers and Owners could not be protected by privilege since these negotiations were aimed at finding a commercial solution to a commercial problem (the inability of Charterers to make hire payments following a significant plunge in the freight market). Factors such as the presence of lawyers in negotiations, the presence of a third party acting as a mediator, or discussion of a novation did not create a "legal dispute". “ Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 04th January 2017 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/2016-967-lmln-4-london-arbitration-30/16 monthly 0.5 2020-06-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1592306678642-H3KUR7BOYXNSYRI195LF/image-asset.jpeg Case Summaries - (2016) 967 LMLN 4- London Arbitration 30/16 “A London Tribunal has ruled that a claim for legal costs by itself is capable of succeeding under the Inter-Club Agreement (as it held that Clause 4 of the ICA included legal costs in the defence of the original claim), in contrast to an earlier decision on a similar point by another London tribunal.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 28th December 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/oldendorff-gmbh-co-kg-oldendorff-v-sea-powerful-ii-special-maritime-enterprises-head-owners-zagora-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-06-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1592306332055-9IC2ROAXT5LEAB5NQXTO/161221.jpg Case Summaries - Oldendorff GmbH &amp; Co KG (Oldendorff) v Sea Powerful II Special Maritime Enterprises (Head Owners) "Zagora" [2016] “Where the same agents acted for the shipowners, receivers and other parties in the contractual chain, the Court rejected an argument that the cargo was delivered to the agents on behalf of the shipowners, thus coming outside the terms of the Charterers' LOI; finding instead that the agents must have acted for the party to whom delivery had been requested under the LOI. “ Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 21st December 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/transgrain-shipping-singapore-pte-ltd-v-yangtze-navigation-hong-kong-co-ltd-anor-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-06-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1592306066094-B10KTEAJ056KUCLFML31/161214.jpg Case Summaries - Transgrain Shipping (Singapore) PTE Ltd v Yangtze Navigation (Hong Kong) Co Ltd &amp; Anor [2016] “In a claim for an indemnity under the Inter-Club Agreement, it was held that the true construction of clause 8(d) and, in particular, the term "act" in the phrase "act or neglect", did not require fault. Therefore, Charterers' order not to discharge soya bean meal for over 4 months due to non-payment by receivers was considered an "act" within the ambit of clause 8(d), and Charterers were required to bear 100% of the claim.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 14th December 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/bank-of-baroda-gcc-operations-ors-v-nawany-marine-shipping-fze-ors-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-05-27 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1590577048710-2JIG1LG0OTUD68096JOF/161207+non-exclusive+jurisdiction+election.jpg Case Summaries - Bank of Baroda, GCC Operations &amp; Ors v Nawany Marine Shipping FZE &amp; Ors [2016] “Borrowers under a Facility Agreement financing the purchase of a vessel challenged the Lender's right to pursue its debt in the English Court— pursuant to a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause — on the basis that the Lender had already made an election in favour of a foreign court. The English Court upheld its jurisdiction finding that there was no clear election. Furthermore, the foreign proceedings — an attempt to enforce security after arrest of the vessel in India — were different in nature from the English ones. In any event, in common with many international financing transactions, the Agreement did not bar parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 07th December 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/volcafe-ltd-and-ors-v-compania-sud-americana-de-vapores-sa-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-05-27 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1590576136662-N0NRII192LCOYD892EVW/161130+Hague+Rules+article+IV+rule+2%28m%29+inherent+vice+burden+of+proof+negligence.jpg Case Summaries - Volcafe Ltd and Ors v Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA— [2016] “The Court of Appeal has reversed a controversial first instance ruling and has held that it is not a pre-requisite for a carrier relying on the Article IV r2 (m) Hague Rules defence ('inherent vice') to disprove his negligence. Instead, once the carrier has shown an initial entitlement to rely on 'inherent vice', the burden then shifts to the cargo claimant to establish any negligence precluding reliance on the defence.” Louise Glover E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 30th November 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/star-polaris-llc-v-hhic-phil-inc-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585945423091-69S8R9LSY49C332WRCSN/161123.jpg Case Summaries - Star Polaris LLC v HHIC-PHIL Inc [2016] “The Court found that the exclusion of "consequential or special losses, damages or expenses" in the Guarantee clause of a shipbuilding contract (on an amended SAJ form) was wide enough to cover financial losses beyond the replacement/repair of the physical damage.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 23rd November 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/pan-oceanic-chartering-inc-v-unipec-uk-co-limited-and-unipec-asia-co-limited-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585944937154-RZE4SX594GUSK5I8JID4/161116+COA+tortious+interference+commission+brokerage.jpg Case Summaries - Pan Oceanic Chartering Inc v Unipec UK Co. Limited and Unipec Asia Co. Limited [2016] “Owners' brokers under a COA claimed damages from the traders/ charterers who had slowed and then ceased performance, depriving them of commission. The claim, based on tortious interference with contractual relations, was dismissed by the Court as the two necessary elements of the tort were absent. There was no contractual right to the commission (as opposed to a minimum expectation of it) and no breach by the owners of the brokerage contract.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 16th November 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/regulus-ship-services-pte-ltd-v-lundin-services-bv-and-lkdam-productions-sa-costs-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585944282797-0J1Y5EH1SWFE5G3G9K45/161109.jpg Case Summaries - Regulus Ship Services Pte Ltd v Lundin Services BV and lkdam Productions SA (Costs) [2016] “By an ocean towage contract on BIMCO terms, owners of the tug boat claimed demurrage for delays due to extra ballast. The Court found that the owners of the tow breached their obligation under the Towcon to provide the vessel "in light ballast condition" as this means "ensuring physical fitness, primarily stability, for the tow's voyage". However, the claim was rejected because it was not proved that the breach caused the delay under clause 17 of the Towcon.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 09th November 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/fiona-trust-holding-corporation-ors-v-privalov-ors-costs-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585943714401-5JJPH9E1XPGN5WEZS1RA/161102.jpg Case Summaries - Fiona Trust &amp; Holding Corporation &amp; Ors v Privalov &amp; Ors (Costs) [2016] “After Defendants were awarded $59.8 million for damages caused by worldwide freezing orders against them, they were now able to recover 50% of their costs, and not 100%, since 1) Defendants did not recover their full damages claimed (some $387 million), 2) large financial investments were made towards issues on which Defendants failed, and 3) Defendants provided untruthful evidence in Court.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 02nd November 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/vinnlustodin-hf-vatryggingaffelag-islands-hf-v-sea-tank-shipping-as-formerly-known-as-tank-invest-as-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585943292674-64MPBGFIMPL8I8SZC2GF/161026.jpg Case Summaries - Vinnlustodin HF Vatryggingaffelag Islands HF v Sea Tank Shipping AS (formerly known as TANK INVEST AS) [2016] “Carriers argued that their liability in respect of a parcel of some 2000mt fish oil could be restricted pursuant to Article IV Rule 5 of the Hague Rules which provides for limitation per "package or unit". The Court held that the word "unit" refers to a physical item that is not packaged, rather than to a unit of measurement. Therefore, Hague Rules limitation does not apply to bulk cargoes.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 26th October 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/kairos-shipping-ltd-anorv-enka-co-llc-ors-atlantik-confidence-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585943035631-3XJFYL2LZNZZ084T1YP6/161019.jpg Case Summaries - Kairos Shipping Ltd &amp; Anorv Enka &amp; Co LLC &amp; Ors (ATLANTIK CONFIDENCE) [2016] “An "aggregation of unlikelihoods" convinces the Court that the ship was scuttled and that the Owners are not, therefore, entitled to limit their liability to cargo interests under the Limitation Convention.” George Arghyrakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 19th October 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/grand-china-logistics-holding-group-co-ltd-v-spar-shipping-as-rev-1-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585942859447-OC75ADHR7B153YGX6V6R/161012.jpg Case Summaries - Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co. Ltd v Spar Shipping AS (Rev 1) [2016] “Absent a clear contractual indication, payment of hire under time charterparties is not a condition. Time is not presumed of essence and is generally an innominate term, whose breaches may range from the trivial to the grave.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 12th October 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/golden-endurance-shipping-sa-v-rma-watanya-sa-ors-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585942570808-ZLK1X10WF1K8RL8EVW5U/161005.jpg Case Summaries - Golden Endurance Shipping SA v RMA Watanya SA &amp; Ors [2016] “Where bills of lading were subject to English law and applied the Hague Rules, Owners sought but failed to obtain a declaration that "suit" in Article III rule 6 meant "suit in a jurisdiction applying the Hague Rules" such that proceedings by cargo interests at the place of delivery, Morocco (which applies the Hamburg Rules), did not interrupt the time bar.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 05th October 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/2016-960-lmln-3-london-arbitration-25/16 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585942196118-K204URY762N97VVWNG5H/160928+laytime+demurrage+weather+working+days+basis+4+hatches.jpg Case Summaries - (2016) 960 LMLN 3— London Arbitration 25/16 “In a laytime and demurrage dispute between Owners and Charterers, it was held that where all four hatches of a vessel were available for work and at Charterers' disposal, "weather working days...basis 4 hatches" did not allow Charterers to deduct time from laytime for those hatches not used when Charterers/shippers did not have the labour or cargo to work them.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 28th September 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/2016-960-lmln-2-london-arbitration-24/16 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585941824067-N61YAMHIE0Q4VNCIFMW9/160921.jpg Case Summaries - (2016) 960 LMLN 2— London Arbitration 24/16 “After being off hire due to a failed holds' inspection, it was held that Owners would also be obliged to compensate Charterers for the further delays caused in having to re-enter the berthing queue, as these were directly related to Owners' breach in not providing clean holds.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 21st September 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/2016-959-lmln-1-london-arbitration-22/16 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585918485229-VT1MQKEEHDBBAKET8NFD/160914.jpg Case Summaries - (2016) 959 LMLN 1— London Arbitration 22/16 “Owners were not allowed to claim costs from Charterers via the Piracy Clause for the employment of armed guards since Owners ignored Charterers' orders, which would have enabled the vessel to avoid areas of piracy and danger to the vessel.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 14th September 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/fiona-trust-holding-corporation-v-privalov-ors-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585918363605-OYTB4ZA6ADO1SO3D42PY/160907.jpg Case Summaries - Fiona Trust &amp; Holding Corporation v Privalov &amp; Ors [2016] “A defendant found in the substantive proceedings to have been dishonest could nevertheless claim damages if a freezing order was wrongly obtained against him, and he has suffered loss through his funds being unavailable to him fora long period.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 07th September 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/enterprise-act-2016-amendments-to-the-insurance-act-2015 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585918252866-EK4TGBKZ2LIPCCA5I2JO/160831.jpg Case Summaries - Enterprise Act 2016: Amendments to the Insurance Act 2015 “Further to Part 5 of the Enterprise Act 2016 an additional section (s.13A) will be added to the Insurance Act 2015 establishing an implied term in every contract of insurance (and reinsurance) that a claim must be paid within a "reasonable time"; otherwise, policyholders will be able to claim damages if an insurer's unreasonable delay causes additional losses. The provisions of the Enterprise Act 2016 will come into force on 4th May 2017.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 31st August 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/bahamas-oil-refining-company-international-ltd-v-the-owners-of-the-cape-bari-tankschiffahrts-gmbh-co-kg-bahamas-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585918104631-J8MITXIS4O1GNX21MA8X/160824.jpg Case Summaries - Bahamas Oil Refining Company International Ltd v The Owners of the Cape Bari Tankschiffahrts GMBH &amp; Co KG (Bahamas) [2016] “It was held that owners of a vessel can, by agreement, waive their statutory right of tonnage limitation (under the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976) as long as the provision relied upon makes it clear that that is their intention.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 24th August 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/atlasnavios-navegacao-lda-v-navigators-insurance-company-ltd-ors-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585917952442-9811DGULDPHX2E2B4VR7/160817.jpg Case Summaries - Atlasnavios - Navegacao, LDA v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd &amp; Ors [2016] “A vessel detained and later confiscated in Venezuela allegedly due to drugs strapped to its hull was not considered a constructive total loss under its war risks cover since a proximate cause of the loss, the detention of the vessel, was subject to the infringement of a customs regulation exclusion clause of the policy.“ Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 17th August 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/mitsui-co-ltd-ors-v-beteiligungsgesellschaft-lpg-ors-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585917709113-TYT8HXMUZQJCWM3Q2ZGM/160810+piracy+ransom+negotiations+general+average+York+Antwerp+Rules.jpg Case Summaries - Mitsui &amp; Co Ltd &amp; Ors v Beteiligungsgesellschaft LPG &amp; Ors [2016] “Following ransom negotiations that lasted for 51 days between Owners and pirates, it was held that Owners could not recover crew-related expenses or bunkers as general average for that period since these expenses were not incurred as a true alternative to the pirates' initial ransom demand, and therefore not within the meaning of Rule F of the York Antwerp Rules.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 10th August 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/l-v-a-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585917592622-0VG79VCQXBM8OLLV6X03/160803.jpg Case Summaries - L v A [2016] “An Owner entitled to an indemnity from the Charterer was entitled to an immediate monetary payment, even when the judgment against which the indemnity was sought had an appeal pending.” George Arghyrakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 03rd August 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/2016-956-lmln-1-london-arbitration-18/16 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585917473444-O1CXRY2LLE2SRXZAVRLQ/160727.jpg Case Summaries - (2016) 956 LMLN 1— London Arbitration 18/16 “In a shipbuilding contract in which the builder defaulted by failing to construct two container vessels within an agreed time frame, it was held that the buyer was to have access to the same shipyard in order to continue construction of each vessel and that, furthermore, the builder was to provide all necessary assistance.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 27th July 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/versloot-dredging-bv-anor-v-hdi-gerling-industrie-versicherung-ag-ors-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585915551196-KT4B1E702GA5Z09QH58X/160720.jpg Case Summaries - Versloot Dredging BV &amp; Anor v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG &amp; Ors [2016] “In an insurance claim under a hull and machinery policy, Owners had lied to insurers in order to strengthen their claim; however, the Court held that since the lie was irrelevant and immaterial to the claim (and therefore not a fraudulent device), insurers could not reject Owners' claim.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 20th July 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/2016-954-lmln-4-london-arbitration-15/16 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585915428451-3KCYE1Z0XAX9MXBEWF7R/160713.jpg Case Summaries - (2016) 954 LMLN 4 — London Arbitration 15/16 “In a time charter providing for redelivery on dropping outward sea pilot, it was held that redelivery nevertheless took place in port, once Charterers had given up their use of the vessel (and the Master had signed a redelivery certificate). Charterers' subsequent arrest of the vessel therefore did not give rise to a claim for hire. The High Court declined to give Owners leave to appeal.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 13th July 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/connect-shipping-inc-anor-v-sveriges-anfgartygs-assurans-forening-the-swedish-club-ors-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585915242505-7Y4GACATDP0PP2603FBG/160706+late+notice+of+abandonment+total+loss.jpg Case Summaries - Connect Shipping Inc &amp; Anor v Sveriges Anfgartygs Assurans Forening (The Swedish Club) &amp; Ors [2016] “A Notice of Abandonment issued by Owners to Insurers several months following a vessel's casualty was held to be effective, and Owners were therefore able to succeed in showing that the vessel was a complete total loss.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 06th July 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/imperator-i-maritime-company-v-bunge-sa-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585915048819-16GNXJR3MRZ5UJPK09PZ/160629.jpg Case Summaries - Imperator I Maritime Company v Bunge SA [2016] “In a case of underperformance due to a prolonged stay in tropical waters, it is not a defence for owners to say that underperformance resulted from compliance with charterers' orders, unless the cause was a risk which owners had not assumed in the contract.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 29th June 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/agouman-v-leigh-day-a-firm-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585914823132-2FD16X22V2XUUZ7F0K0S/160622+law+firm+breach+of+duty+exposure+settlement+fund.jpg Case Summaries - Agouman v Leigh Day (a firm) [2016] “After securing a £30 million settlement from a global energy company in relation to a chemical waste spill, a law firm was held to have breached its duty of care towards a claimant by exposingthe settlement fund in a foreign bank to a dishonest third party organisation claimingto act on behalf of the victims.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 22nd June 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/globe-motors-inc-ors-v-trwlucas-varity-electric-steering-ltd-anor-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585914626076-U7HK9P8RJK2NPWI1UG5R/160615.i.jpg Case Summaries - Globe Motors, Inc &amp; Ors v TRWLucas Varity Electric Steering Ltd &amp; Anor [2016] “A provision requiring that any amendment to an agreement be in writing was held to be unenforceable; such a clause can in fact be varied by oral agreement or by conduct.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 15th June 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/fsl-9-pte-ltd-an-or-v-norwegian-hull-club-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585914460131-XMP4G235IG0ZYYHFGT63/160608.jpg Case Summaries - FSL-9 PTE Ltd &amp; An or v Norwegian Hull Club [2016] “In an LOU dispute between Owners and Charterers' P&I Club, the LOU's use of the words "liberty to apply" did not mean undersecured Owners could apply to the Court for an increase in the amount of the LOU. Any right to enforce an increase in the amount of security lay against Charterers and not against the P&I Club directly, and in the event security was inadequate, Owners were not prevented from arresting Charterers' assets.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 08th June 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/1-suez-fortune-investments-ltd-2-piraeus-bank-ae-v-talbot-underwriting-ltd-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585914273276-2GLU3ERGADZZL191HKMZ/160601+unless+order+strike+out+disclosure.jpg Case Summaries - (1) Suez Fortune Investments Ltd (2) Piraeus Bank AE v Talbot Underwriting Ltd [2016] “Court refuses to revisit "unless" order striking out owners' claim of a vessel CTL against underwriters, due to owners' failure to disclose full electronic archives.” George Arghyrakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 01st June 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sino-channel-asia-ltd-v-dana-shipping-and-trading-pte-singapore-anor-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-04-03 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585914105125-HHEEDZBKE3T0PZUD6POS/160525.jpg Case Summaries - Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping and Trading Pte Singapore &amp; Anor [2016] “Owners served notice of arbitration to the email of a person related to, but distinct from Charterers. That was not valid service on charterers, even if in practice the person was handling the entirety of the contract on behalf of charterers. Also, although Charterers later became aware of the award but failed to react, neither their silence nor their inaction could be considered ratification.” Antonino Cordopatri E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 25th May 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/shagang-shipping-co-ltd-v-hna-group-co-ltd-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-03-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585578235167-SDELMFHX834S2XJ0PSDH/160518.jpg Case Summaries - Shagang Shipping Co Ltd v HNA Group Co Ltd [2016] “Following repudiatory breach of charter by a charterer, its guarantor was unable to convince the Court that the charter was procured by bribery so as to render the guarantee unenforceable by the disponent owner beneficiary. The Court found that evidence was insufficient and confessions of bribery unreliable, as they may have been obtained by torture.” Antonino Cordopatri E.G. Arghyrakis & Co. 18th May 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/supreme-court-pst-energy-7-shipping-llc-anor-v-ow-bunker-malta-ltd-anor-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-03-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585576804888-6V6JQC9BWZO6MVZT1YJH/160511+time+charter+off-hire+arrest+sub+charters+third+parties.jpg Case Summaries - Supreme Court PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC &amp; Anor v OW Bunker Malta Ltd &amp; Anor [2016] “The Supreme Court dismissed Owners' appeal and confirmed that OWB's contract with Owners was such that Owners could not withhold payment and so Owners remained liable to pay OWB/ING.” Vasilis Bikakis E.G. Arghyrakis & Co. 11th May 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/supreme-court-nyk-bulkship-atlantic-nv-v-cargill-international-sa-global-santosh-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-03-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585576178865-HPQ9OH2PYWMUDSGVSK3R/160511+time+charter+off-hire+arrest+sub+charters+third+parties.jpg Case Summaries - Supreme Court NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NV v Cargill International SA ("Global Santosh") [2016] “The Supreme Court by a 4:1 majority reversed the Court of Appeal to hold that under the time charter, the vessel was off-hire throughout the period of an arrest caused by a dispute down the charterparty chain involving sub charterers and/or the parties to the commodity contract. Under the Charter, an arrest would not render the vessel off hire if caused by "Charterers or their Agents", but the Court found that those causing the arrest did not qualify as Charterers' agents.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 11th May 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/st-shipping-and-transport-pte-ltd-v-spaceshipping-ltd-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-03-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585575972410-CEKMNAYM4XXSVNCCYOK4/160504.jpg Case Summaries - ST Shipping and Transport PTE LTD v SpaceShipping Ltd [2016] “Under a Shelltime 4 Charterparty, the Vessel was not off hire when detained by Venezuelan authorities following illegal voyage orders (provided via Charterers' agents); further Charterers were liable pursuant to clause 13 to Owners in respect of the continued detention of the Vessel following redelivery by Charterers on expiry of the Charter term. Permission to appeal was refused.” Liz Watton E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 04th May 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/time-bar monthly 0.5 2020-03-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585575794473-KUBO2P7HCNR0O81ZUK8O/160427.jpg Case Summaries - Time Bar “In a recently reported London Arbitration it was held that the six year contractual time bar ran from the moment each instalment of time charter hire fell due from the charterers, and not from the date of redelivery of the vessel. The cause of action for some outlays, including bunkers supplied by the owners, did not however accrue until redelivery.” E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 27th April 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/shipowners-mutual-protection-and-indemnity-association-luxembourg-v-containerships-denizcilik-nakliyat-ve-ticaret-as-yusuf-cepnioglu-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-03-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585575484681-NINK9B3590MTFEAVE5G2/160420+p%26i+pay+to+be+paid.jpg Case Summaries - Shipowners' Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association (Luxembourg) v Containerships Denizcilik Nakliyat ve Ticaret A.S ("Yusuf Cepnioglu") [2016] “Turkish Charterers unable to rely on Turkish statute allowing direct action against a P&I Club and ordered to arbitrate in London under Club Rules. But the "pay to be paid" rule means they are unlikely to recover.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 20th April 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sarpd-oil-international-ltd-v-addax-energy-sa-anor-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-03-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585575272153-YVGEAEN551L9LFHQUGUU/160406.jpg Case Summaries - SARPD Oil International Ltd. v. Addax Energy SA &amp; Anor [2016] “In an international purchase contract dispute, a claimant that was not obliged to publish accounts and had not revealed any information about its financial position was required to provide security for costs.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 06th April 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/vinergy-international-pvt-limited-v-richmond-mercantile-limited-fzc-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-03-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585574817807-BAKP7683YTO3B2RHI5JC/160330.jpg Case Summaries - Vinergy International (PVT) Limited v. Richmond Mercantile Limited FZC [2016] “An innoncent party may lawfully terminate a contract where at least one of a number of breaches was repudiatory, even though others were not, or were capable of being remedied on notice.” George Arghyrakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 30th March 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sbt-star-bulk-tankers-germany-gmbh-co-k-g-v-cosmotrade-sa-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-03-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585574444649-9GRGRH7YD2R3TLQAAWN1/160323.jpg Case Summaries - SBT Star Bulk &amp; Tankers (Germany) GmbH &amp; Co K G v. Cosmotrade SA [2016] “Under the terms of a charter party calling for “one trip time charter,” the charterer was allowed to order the vessel to load a further cargo after the initial cargo had been discharged.” Vasilis Bikakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 23rd March 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/the-superior-pescadores-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-03-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585574229409-B9ALZG3ZDQRO2PM83R3K/160316+%281%29-page-001.jpg Case Summaries - The Superior Pescadores [2016] “Under English law the Hague Rules “as enacted” means the Hague Rules “as amended” being the Hague-Visby Rules.” Liz Watton E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 16th March 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/the-magellan-spirit-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-03-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585573598516-IEVP4VXCBB61HAB910VF/160309.jpg Case Summaries - The Magellan Spirit [2016] “Commercial Court rejects Owners’ arguments of (i) agency, (ii) incorporation and (iii) express agreement and also considers their delay in applying is sufficient to reject Owners’ anti-suit injunction against Nigerian cargo claim in Nigeria.” George Arghyrakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 09th March 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/gold-reserve-inc-v-the-bolivarian-republic-of-venezuela-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-03-28 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585392496676-5BDLQY4UAXYXLHPVL9U7/160302.jpg Case Summaries - Gold Reserve Inc. v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela [2016] "The existence of an arbitration agreement meant that Venezuela could not rely on state immunity, even when the Claimant was in breach of its obligation of full and frank disclosure.” George Arghyrakis E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 02nd March 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/cofely-v-bingham-and-knowles-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-03-27 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585320898788-63YPF7MECOCL1POAYLG1/160224+construction+bias+appointment.jpg Case Summaries - Cofely v. Bingham and Knowles [2016] “In a construction case, an arbitrator would be disqualified for apparent bias where 18% of his appintments and 25% of his income in the last 3 years were derived from the same appointer.” George Arghyrakis E.G. Arghyrakis & Co. 24th February 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/jsc-bta-bank-v-ablyazov-and-khrapunov-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-03-27 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585320348789-8UQARBTP4TV7T0VF1ZC6/160217.JPG Case Summaries - JSC BTA Bank v. Ablyazov and Khrapunov [2016] “Whilst breach of a Freezing Order is punishable by imprisonment, the Court cannot order damages against the person in contempt, because the law of contempt is concerned with public interest and not private compensation. But a conspiracy to injure another by conspiring to breach a Freezing Order amounts to the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means and may be compensated by an award of damages.” George Arghyrakis E.G. Arghyrakis & Co. 17th February 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/sumanu-natural-resources-ltd-anr-v-mediterranean-shipping-co-sa-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-03-27 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585320058352-VCGHADA3ZZGEIN1YZ8NF/160210i.jpg Case Summaries - Sumanu Natural Resources Ltd &amp; Anr v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA [2016] “Claimants did not have title to sue as neither were named in non-negotiable Bills of Lading. Second Claimant time barred under one year Hague-Visby Rules time bar in any event. Even if wrong on title to sue point, on the facts, two of the three seals on the containers were intact and, therefore, cargo of coltan ore could not have been substituted with sand and pebbles as alleged.” Liz Watton E. G. Arghyrakis & Co. 10th February 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/glencore-v-pt-tera-logistic-indonesia-2016 monthly 0.5 2020-03-27 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1585319704310-HUK50R26ULAHMUWUMOTM/160203.jpg Case Summaries - Glencore v. PT Tera Logistic Indonesia [2016] “Where a claim and a counterclaim arise from a single set of facts giving rise to a balance of accounts or netting-off under a contract, a reference to “claims” and to “all disputes arising under the contract” in notices of appointment of an arbitrator will ordinarily suffice to interrupt the running of time in respect of the counterclaim.” George Arghyrakis 3rd February 2016 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/2016-942-lmln-2-london-arbitration-1/16 monthly 0.5 2023-08-29 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/fulton-shipping-inc-v-globalia-business-travel-sau-2015 monthly 0.5 2023-08-29 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/nordlake-v-seaeagle-2015 monthly 0.5 2023-08-29 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/ramburs-inc-v-agrifert-sa-2015 monthly 0.5 2023-08-29 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/Arbitration monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/King%27s+Bench monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/LMAA+Terms monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/Technology+and+Construction+Court monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/Supreme+Court monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/Queen%27s+Bench+Division monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/Privy+Council+Appeal monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/Privy+Council monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/Federal+Court+of+Australia monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/Admiralty+Court monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/Administrative+Court monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/Court monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/Singapore+International+Commercial+Court monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/Commercial+Court monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/High+Court monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/London+Arbitration monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/Court+of+Appeal monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/Singapore+Court+of+Appeal monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/Chancery+Court monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/Judicial+Committee+of+the+Privy+Council monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/category/Court+of+Justice+of+the+European+Union monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/tag/Commercial+Court monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/tag/High+Court monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/tag/London+Arbitration monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/tag/Supreme+Court monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/tag/Privy+Council monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/tag/Court+of+Appeal monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/case-summaries/tag/Admiralty+Court monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/articles daily 0.75 2025-09-15 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/north-sea-tanker-collision monthly 0.5 2025-09-15 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1757929092991-4H69W0LSKU8RAAH5WU31/pexels-alexander-bobrov-390088-1036866.jpg Articles - North Sea Tanker Collision https://www.egalegal.com/articles/athens10k-louise monthly 0.5 2025-03-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/6fa92adb-63e9-46d0-ab9b-f4445e6dc204/IMG_7149.jpg Articles - Congratulations to Louise Glover for completing the Athens 10K - Make it stand out Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference. https://www.egalegal.com/articles/philip-van-der-zanden monthly 0.5 2024-11-18 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1829a36d-5fac-4f3f-b5f6-af98975e5b89/Philip+vdZ.jpg Articles - In Memoriam - Philip van der Zanden - Make it stand out Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference. https://www.egalegal.com/articles/sme-legal-awards monthly 0.5 2024-07-12 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/0322426c-f016-4984-8ed5-17f601db842d/sme+legal+awards.png Articles - E. G. Arghyrakis &amp; Co. wins SME Legal Award - Make it stand out Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference. https://www.egalegal.com/articles/doctors-without-borders monthly 0.5 2023-09-28 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1679053972710-OPAVPFIJ6VL1ZCDLTTQ2/doctors.jpg Articles - E. G. Arghyrakis &amp; Co proudly supports Doctors Without Borders - Make it stand out Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference. https://www.egalegal.com/articles/20th-anniversary monthly 0.5 2023-03-17 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/328e6859-3e78-460f-9953-60f6521e276f/anniversary39.jpg Articles - 20th Anniversary of E. G. Arghyrakis &amp; Co! - Make it stand out Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference. https://www.egalegal.com/articles/ukraine-grain-export-73k44 monthly 0.5 2023-08-29 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/ukraine-grain-export-zt6gj monthly 0.5 2023-08-29 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/ukraine-grain-export monthly 0.5 2022-08-04 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/posidonia-tennis-tournament-2022 monthly 0.5 2022-08-04 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/d147c86d-a82f-469c-a30f-4d0fa078ce4c/EAS04735+%282%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 - Make it stand out Tournament winners Jon Lindqvist and Vera Popova with E.G. Arghyrakis & Co’s George Arghyrakis and Louise Glover (left to right) https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730306902-O24ZPC8LF0UJ8M52SB6B/EAS04712+%282%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730306460-CYW3KQ578XD3QTLQG8W8/EAS04713+%282%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730330844-TD0LHW5KSO46L0JXHA6E/EAS04716+%282%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730331864-CUDCN1I53C68YDMQFNL0/EAS04718+%282%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730336187-74U82LGX7EG3FA2EJ124/EAS04720+%282%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730336471-HN4KLN4L9OGI9UUUNZ0S/EAS04722+%283%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730343711-26G5BP6BH343HDSF5NPE/EAS04723+%282%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730350925-0PAZDWJYGDKNRU0DF3EH/EAS04726+%282%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730356071-6OZB316KOE4US8AP3EL0/EAS04729+%283%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730361742-6HCP7X47W3SXBY2HGNJH/EAS04733+%282%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730367507-Q2CPXGGEE2S4CZ5SRZVC/EAS04735+%282%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730373507-CYIVV13SA7H8TJKQ7D86/EAS04737+%282%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730378774-93K5W8NLV4VHG2ZXFG1L/EAS04739+%282%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730384903-KDXGIV1U72RCVMO2UJHG/EAS04743+%282%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730393251-JVEN30XBL39EATFSS03G/EAS04746+%282%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730402549-WUTLSL6XD8HFGZON1GKA/EAS04750+%282%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730410377-L4LTPLLA7386LAAQH54E/EAS04753+%282%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730418396-SJDPRUCTPX2M536TC8OE/EAS04757+%282%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730425145-GEK11M3287U7RSRNSVXT/EAS04758+%282%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1655730432001-LSKTBKXMF3AGAOBZPZNH/EAS04760+%282%29.JPG Articles - Posidonia Tennis Tournament 2022 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/cargil-v-stour-bay monthly 0.5 2023-08-29 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/19th-anniversary monthly 0.5 2022-03-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1643654995633-FUD3CS68P0JZQ5JCUXR5/unsplash-image-WPTHZkA-M4I.jpg Articles - Our 19th Anniversary! Today we celebrate our 19th Anniversary - E. G. Arghyrakis & Co was founded on 31st January 2003! With offices originally in Fleet Street and then Bouverie Street, we are now based in Staple Inn (by Chancery Lane). Thank you to all our dedicated clients over the years - we hope we can continue to deliver our personal and professional service for many years to come! https://www.egalegal.com/articles/ai-giorgis-oil-trading-ltd-v-ag-shipping-energy-pte-2021-ewhc-2319 monthly 0.5 2023-08-29 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/financial-times-ports-not-prepared-for-container-shipping monthly 0.5 2021-08-23 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/certificate-final-clauses-in-the-pursuit-of-commercial-certainty-in-commodity-trading monthly 0.5 2021-09-01 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/cma-cgm-libra-bound-for-the-supreme-court monthly 0.5 2021-07-28 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/advisors-beware monthly 0.5 2021-07-20 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/campaign-for-greener-arbitrations monthly 0.5 2021-07-02 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1625244035858-V7UVFGFRL05Z9L6O0L15/greener+arbitrations.png Articles - Greener Arbitrations - Make it stand out Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference. https://www.egalegal.com/articles/the-odessa-international-maritime-insurance-seminar monthly 0.5 2021-06-21 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1624278941702-F43CAOWSF72BGNI94SBH/Certificate+of+appreciation+George+Arghyrakis.jpg Articles - The Odessa International Maritime Insurance Seminar - Make it stand out Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference. https://www.egalegal.com/articles/certainty-in-international-trade-preserved-buyers-headache-turns-into-migraine monthly 0.5 2021-06-09 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/high-court-v-arbitration monthly 0.5 2021-06-09 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1623043781474-7H77T2S5V82ROPYHZTTP/Slide1.JPG Articles - High Court v. Arbitration - Make it stand out Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference. https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1623043831046-7D7MAJCPMV103TFWA3OS/Slide2.JPG Articles - High Court v. Arbitration - Make it stand out Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference. https://www.egalegal.com/articles/the-midnight-hour monthly 0.5 2021-06-04 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/updated-london-maritime-arbitrators-associations-lmaa-2021-terms monthly 0.5 2021-05-26 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/witness-statements-in-the-business-and-property-courts monthly 0.5 2021-05-25 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/service-out-of-jurisdiction-post-brexit monthly 0.5 2021-05-25 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/tag/gafta monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/tag/cif monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/tag/quantity monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/tag/certificatefinal monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/tag/quality+dispute monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/tag/commodities monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/tag/quality monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/tag/cargo+off-spec monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/tag/fosfa monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/tag/finality+clause monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/tag/fob monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/tag/final+at+loading monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/articles/tag/inspection monthly 0.5 https://www.egalegal.com/services daily 0.75 2021-05-25 https://www.egalegal.com/about-us daily 0.75 2026-01-30 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1617193015194-O9D9PR8CGYQ38BD44P1T/GEORGE.jpg About Us https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1622206498885-WNTV9B0VGRRFOOU0AJ8B/Louise%2BGlover.jpg About Us https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/d1a464d6-f478-4a40-9e38-a9aa1f0d548a/JC+Profile+cropped.jpg About Us https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/d6841aee-ebe5-44ca-ac3b-5dea96ed47c9/websitephoto+lea.jpg About Us https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/0d915458-ed63-4013-8ec1-19a098baadfe/img_7330.jpg About Us https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/168d7e3c-784f-4550-8588-51bf6b7fca08/Enis+Moussa.jfif About Us https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/af468db2-2ed4-49c8-bbe3-1f69ac16c32a/IMG_3125.jpg About Us https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1584900354030-E70Q2J5UKAEBOMH638P3/bmla.png About Us - Make it stand out Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference. https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e760c298df89c2ef1927490/1617908830362-VWVHVFIK851MQ96RIYZ2/ASG.jpg About Us - Make it stand out Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference. https://www.egalegal.com/careers daily 0.75 2021-09-01 https://www.egalegal.com/home daily 1.0 2026-01-14 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5ec321c2af33de48734cc929/1618511743693-J3A8OYH6X8C7RXNU5K0J/20140301_Trade+151_0124+1.jpg Home https://www.egalegal.com/contact-us daily 0.75 2026-03-02 https://www.egalegal.com/links daily 0.75 2021-03-30 https://www.egalegal.com/privacy-policy daily 0.75 2021-03-31 https://www.egalegal.com/compound-interest-calculator daily 0.75 2023-11-10