Case Summaries
The Kingdom of Spain and The French State v The London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd (No 2) [2026] UKSC 36
Following the sinking of the Prestige off the coast of Galicia in 2002, Spain and France invoked article 117 of the Spanish Penal Code 1995 to sue the vessel’s P&I Club directly, as victims of the extensive pollution. In civil proceedings the Spanish courts declared Spain entitled to recover up to €2.355bn and France €117m, subject to the $1bn limit of cover. The Club contended that by taking the benefit of the insurance contract the States also took its burden, including the London arbitration clause. The Supreme Court held that the States’ obligation to arbitrate arose as a contractual obligation at common law, not an equitable one, so their breach of contract attracted common law damages, and confirmed the arbitrators’ awards of monetary relief to the Club.
Read the full judgment here
GTLK Malta Four Ltd v Pola Maritime Ltd & Ors [2026]
In 2018 - 2020 the Claimant Owners (a subsidiary of an Irish entity ultimately owned by a Russian one) entered 7 ten-year bareboat charters with Pola, effectively a financing with rights to buy, and performance guaranteed by Ds2-4. Following the invasion of Ukraine, imposition of Sanctions on Owners, and withdrawal of insurances, Pola declared that the C/Ps had been terminated by Frustration or repudiatory breach, relying on their contractual right to quiet use. The Claimants (once permitted by the authorities to receive payments), sued Pola and Ds 2-4 for unpaid hire. The Court ruled that the C/Ps clearly allocated loss of use risk to Charterers and issued summary judgment totalling some USD40m against all 4 Ds.
Read the full judgement here
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.