Case Summaries
London Arbitration 18/26
The dispute concerned a voyage charterparty arbitration clause requiring arbitrators to be “commercial men and no lawyers”. The disponent owner challenged the charterer’s nominated arbitrator, a non-practising former solicitor, as ineligible due to their legal background. The third arbitrator upheld the challenge, interpreting the clause as excluding former lawyers whose experience was acquired in the legal field, even if they were no longer practising. The challenge succeeded, with the disponent owner entitled to its recoverable assets.
London Arbitration 12/26
Under the Asbatankvoy C/P for the carriage of oil from ‘ARA’, in the event Rotterdam, to Spanish Atlantic/Mediterranean, Charterers ordered the Vessel to load at Rotterdam and discharge part of the cargo at Bilbao, thereafter to the La Coruna anchorage to await further orders, which the Vessel did for over 31 days, effectively providing floating storage pending decisions on further discharge, the Tribunal held. Owners claimed and were awarded damages of just over USD1m (at the C/P demurrage rate) for the detention off La Coruna but were refused the cost of bunkers thereby consumed as these were encompassed in the demurrage rate.
Read the full judgement here
Glencore Energy UK Ltd v Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery Ltd (In Liquidation) [2026] EWHC 2394 (Ch)
Glencore sought and were granted the right under s130(2) Insolvency Act 1986 (moratorium on proceedings) to pursue direct claims against the Defendants for equitable rescission of five crude-oil sales contracts allegedly induced by fraudulent misrepresentations, in terms of which agreements Glencore supplied oil to PLOR worth approximately USD230m. The Court held that Glencore’s claims for rescission, an account of profits and rights in trust to the oil or its proceeds, were sufficiently arguable and involved potentially proprietary rights that could not appropriately be resolved merely through the insolvency proof process.
London Arbitration 14/26
Under a T/C trip, Charterers, having stemmed bunkers, failed to pay the supplier, who then arrested the Vessel at the discharge port; Owners’ P&I first secured and then paid the supplier’s claim, plus costs. Charterers contested any C/P liability to reimburse Owners but the Tribunal disagreed, finding that a ‘non lien’ clause in the pro forma C/P had been incorporated into the present C/P and rendered Charterers liable. The Tribunal also dismissed Charterers’ underperformance claim as the 4 days complained of was the period of the supplier’s arrest.
London Arbitration 15/26
Charterers relied on their WRC report (based on broad satellite data) to support their speed and consumption claim based on 24 hours ‘good weather’ as required and defined in the C/P. Owners contested this on the basis of a screenshot from the Vessel’s ECDIS (recording actual route conditions). The Tribunal disregarded the latter, as it covered insufficient time, but nonetheless dismissed Charterers’ claim as their sole evidence, the WRC report, itself showed adverse currents, albeit for sub-periods of the 24 hours.
Read the full judgement here
Batavia Eximp & Contracting (S) Pte Ltd v Pedregal Maritime SA [2023] EWCA Civ 1158
The holders of 4 B/Ls claimed against Owners for misdelivery of their logs carried on board “Taikoo Brilliance”. The CA upheld Owners’ argument that the claim was time-barred, as security proceedings against a sister ship did not count as the necessary “suit” under Art.III r.6 of the incorporated Hague-Visby Rules, and the substantive claim was made more than one year after delivery. The CA (overturning the Court below) also agreed that the fact that some logs were carried on deck did not disapply the Rules (and their time bar) under Art.1(c) as the B/Ls did not make it possible to identify which of the (non-homogenous) logs were carried on deck.
Read the full judgement here