The Grande Island was time chartered on the NYPE form for a trip from Ghent to Nigeria. The C/P incorporated the BIMCO 2013 Piracy Clause,  paragraph (c), providing Owners with liberty to take preventative measures, such as re-routing, in an area exposed to Piracy risk. Whilst waiting off Warri, as ordered, events arose giving Owners grounds for piracy risk concerns and they took the Vessel to wait off Lagos instead.  An Arbitration Tribunal upheld Owners’ claim for hire during the period away from Warri, rejecting Charterers’ argument that as the parties had chosen to delete the more generous liberties in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the BIMCO clause, they had effectively made paragraph (c ) redundant. On appeal by Charterers, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s ruling, and the Vessel remained on-hire.

Read the full judgement here

Owners of a Vessel chartered on the Vegilvoy form to carry a cargo to a North African port, obtained an urgent Arbitration Award after waiting off such a port, as instructed, cargo sale arrangements having foundered. On the basis of Vessel operational issues (sludge tanks full, Class certificates imminent expiry, shortages of fresh water and provisions, and loss of forward fixtures) the Tribunal ruled (based on the Vegilvoy “Liberty Clause”) that Owners could instead discharge at such safe port (including in another country) as they chose, with cargo remaining in their possession pending delivery to persons entitled, Charterers being liable for all loss, damage and expense caused to Owners by reason of their failure to take delivery.

The Buyer terminated a Norwegian Saleform 2012 MOA under clause 14(a) because the Seller was not ready to deliver the vessel by the cancelling date. It was held that the Buyer could recover loss of bargain damages under clause 14(b), provided that the Seller’s lack of readiness was caused by proven negligence. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court dismissed the Sellers’ appeal and confirmed that the reference to the Buyer’s “loss” in clause 14(b) is broad enough to include loss of bargain damages, even where the Seller’s failure to deliver does not amount to a repudiatory breach.

Read the full judgement here.

The Claimant scrap metal trader claimed against the Defendant insurers under its FDD and Charterers’ Risk insurance, following a liability to the owners of a chartered ship consequent on a cargo fire in 2022. The Court upheld the Defendant insurers’ case that failure to disclose 5 previous cargo fires (not giving rise to claims) in the more recent years of the parties’ 14 year relationship, constituted a breach of its Insurance Act duty of fair presentation, entitling the Defendants to avoid the policy.

Read the full judgement here.

The Vyssos, trading in Ukrainian waters, struck a mine and became a CTL. The owners’ war risk insurance did not respond, due to breach of trading warranties. The Court upheld the rulings that the same breach by owners constituted an insured peril under Oceanus’ (mortgagees) MII policy; the loss was fortuitous (Oceanus’ consent having been induced by a forged AWR cover note), and they were able to recover under their MII policy.

Read the full judgement here.

The Court held that insurers were entitled to rely on a war risks exclusion to reject claims for damage to the Nord Stream gas pipelines following the 2022 Baltic Sea explosions. Although there were competing plausible theories as to who carried out the sabotage, the Court found that it was unnecessary to determine the perpetrators. On either version of events, the damage was directly or indirectly caused by, or occurred in consequence of, the Russia–Ukraine war and therefore fell within the exclusion.

Read the full judgement here.