A voyage C/P provided that in the event of berth unavailability, NOR could be tendered from any usual waiting place. The Vessel tendered NOR at the pilot station some hours before anchoring at a usual place. The Tribunal held that an otherwise valid but premature NOR (as here) was deemed served on commencement of cargo operations. On appeal, the Court ruled that in the absence of waiver of the invalidity, the “Happy Day” ruling was inapplicable and thus the ship was never an arrived ship, and laytime never commenced.

Read the full judgement here.

In January 2023,  having loaded ammonium nitrate at a Sea of Azov port for the Black Sea, under an amended Gencon 94, the Vessel was halted at the Kerch Strait by the Russian Authorities, due to the nature of the cargo. Prolonged delay ensued, followed by eventual landing of the cargo at the load port. The Tribunal held that the interference was unforeseeable, thus not a breach of the safe port warranty.  Nevertheless damages for detention were payable under the incorporated Voywar 93 clause, Charterers having failed to act decisively (in particular by nominating an alternative discharge port).

Read the full judgement here.

Integra sold a quantity of MTBE to Finco, delivery ex-ship ARA (in the event Amsterdam) within a specified 14 day window. By agreement, ex-ship was changed to CIF. Finco alleged repudiatory breaches by Integra on the bases that neither was the nominated ship, “Aramon”, suitable for the Amsterdam facility, nor was the cargo delivered within the agreed window, and sought recovery of their LC payment. The Court ruled that (a) Finco’s stance on suitability of “Aramon” was equivocal such that they could not rely on a repudiatory breach and (b) once changed to CIF, by reason of incorporated BP GTCs, the delivery window was no longer a strict one, such that late arrival did not constitute a repudiatory breach either.

Read the full judgement here.

The Claimants alleged a collision between their fishing vessel and the Defendants’ oil tanker; the Defendants contested the claim, denying any collision, the Claimants failed to provide the ordered security for costs and the claim was struck out by the Court. The Defendants then sought an order for costs against the Claimants’ solicitors, on the basis of an (admitted) misrepresentation they acted for both the fishing vessel and its H&M insurer. The Court found that the Defendants had indeed incurred defence costs which they would not have incurred had they known the true position and ordered the solicitors to pay the Defendants assessed wasted costs in the amount of GBP127,500.

Read the full judgement here.

A cargo of petcock cinder was found wetted in 4 holds, causing delay in discharge. The Tribunal had ruled that leaking and defective bilge system valves were to blame, and rejected Owners’ demurrage claim; Owners appealed under s68(2) (“serious irregularity”) on the basis (amongst others) that the Tribunal failed to comply with its general duty as its finding turned upon an unargued construction of a vessel defect list. Refusing the appeal, the Court held that a different interpretation from that of the parties is not an irregularity, particularly where this was not the Tribunal’s only reason for the finding, and nor was there any substantial injustice.

Read the full judgement here.

The Court held that the unauthorised removal from a marina of an arrested vessel constituted a clear and serious contempt of court, emphasising the importance of arrest orders. The Court proceeded in the defendant’s absence and found the contempt proved. While no sentence was imposed at that stage, the Court indicated that a custodial sentence would be a realistic outcome, subject to any mitigation or steps taken (namely return of the vessel) to purge the contempt.