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.

The Commercial Court dismissed an appeal, thereby upholding an arbitration award, arising from Owners' failure to provide a vessel within the agreed laycan under a contract of affreightment (COA). The Court held that each shipment under the COA constituted a separate and severable contractual obligation, such that a subsequent shipment did not cure the earlier breach. Charterers were therefore entitled to recover the orthodox contract/market measure of damages reflecting the cost of fixing substitute tonnage.

Read the full judgement here.

The Court considered whether a payment obligation under a Saleform 2012 MOA expired at midnight in (i) Norway, where payment was to be effected, or (ii) in the most westerly jurisdiction referred to in the MOA definition of "Banking Days". The Court held that the definition of "Banking Days" merely identified which calendar days counted for the purpose of calculating time and did not determine when a day began or ended. Buyers were required to release the purchase price from escrow by midnight in Norway and were in default when they failed to do so.

Read the full judgement here.

A Gencon 94 C/P for the carriage of bauxite provided that demurrage and balance of freight were payable within 20 banking days of completion of discharge.  Before arrival at discharge, Owners demanded load port demurrage, and threated to lien the cargo. The Tribunal set aside the ensuing agreement to Owners’ figures on the grounds that it was obtained by economic duress. Nevertheless, on the merits, Owners’ calculations had been correct and the economic duress had little impact on the end result.

Read the full judgement here.