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.

Following SpiceJet's failure to satisfy payment obligations under Early Termination Agreements ("ETAs") entered into after aircraft lease payment defaults, the Commercial Court held that the lessor was entitled to render the ETAs null and void and revert to its remedies under the original leases. Rejecting arguments based on estoppel, waiver and reasonableness, the Court found that redelivery acceptance certificates issued under the ETAs did not prevent the lessor from pursuing lease-based claims arising from the lessee's earlier defaults.

Read the full judgement here.

Following Owners’ refusal under a C/P incorporating an ‘EPS’ sanctions clause, to load a cargo of oil at a Russian Black Sea port for the Mediterranean, the High Court held that Owners were in repudiatory breach, having no reasonable grounds to apprehend that Sanctioned individuals retained roles within the proposed Shippers. The CA reversed that ruling, finding that the information supplied by Charterers and obtained independently by Owners did leave room for a reasonable apprehension that Sanctioned individuals remained involved, and justified their refusal.

Read the full judgement here.

Owners of the Stena Immaculate failed to break limitation claimed by the Solong, which “ploughed into” the other vessel at anchor. The Admiralty Judge found that, although the knowledge required did not extend to the identity of the innocent vessel, nevertheless limitation was “virtually unbreakable”. The level of culpability had to be such as to deprive the Owners of the benefit of their insurance policy and required the personal knowledge of the Owners’ directing mind (and not just the DPA, for example).

Read the full judgement here.

In a dispute as to the construction of a contract, the unsuccessful defendant sought to appeal the arbitration award under s.69.  The claimant contended that the contract was oral, and thus the challenge was as to a matter of fact (to which s.69 is inapplicable). Dismissing the claimant’s argument, the Court found that whilst initially oral, the agreement was later reduced to writing such that s.69 was applicable, and that the Arbitrator had erred on the point of construction, such that the award would be set aside.

Read the full judgement here.

Two Congenbills specified that freight was payable as per a C/P dated 12 June 2024 and contained the standard clause incorporating all terms and conditions including law and arbitration of “the charterparty dated as overleaf”. There was no such C/P but the Court ruled that 2 booking notes of that date (issued by Owners and covering the same amount of cargo as specified in the B/Ls) were incorporated.  As these contained a London Arbitration clause (and despite the 1 year time bar having elapsed) , the Court issued an ASI restraining cargo insurers from continuing their damage claim in the Courts of Brazil.

Read the full judgement here.