Two bulk carriers, the KIVELI and AFINA I, collided off the south coast of Greece, causing substantial damage to both. The Admiralty judge found that the COLREGS 1972 applied and allocated primary fault to the KIVELI (80:20). CA considered the challenge as to whether the encounter qualified as a “head on” situation under Rule 41 but upheld the trial decision, confirming that full visibility of sidelights is not required, and that vessels on reciprocal or near-reciprocal courses fall within the Rule. The CA clarified that Rule 14 obligations continue until the collision risk ends and noted that nautical assessors are not appointed as a matter of course on appeals, requiring parties to justify their necessity and scope. The appeal was dismissed.

Read the full judgment here.

Buyers terminated ten shipbuilding contracts after the yard failed to procure refund guarantees within the contractual 120 day period. They also claimed loss of bargain damages. The arbitral tribunal held that the obligation was an innominate term, such that Owners were not entitled to loss of bargain damages in addition to cancellation. The Court dismissed Buyers’ section 69 appeal, ruling that the obligation was not a condition but an innominate term, the specific contractual right of cancellation being the remedy for such default.

Read the full judgment here.

Time Charterers relied on a WRC Report to justify deductions from hire for underperformance and overconsumption based on (i) extrapolated ‘good weather’ underperformance; alternatively (ii) a fouled hull on delivery. The Tribunal dismissed the former as it failed to recognise the C/P ‘adverse current’ parameter and the latter as Charterers’ survey was inconclusive. Charterers’ contention that  it was underperformance which caused Owners to incur regulatory costs under incorporated BIMCO emissions clauses (thus relieving Charterers from any reimbursement obligation) failed for the same reason.

Read the full judgment here.

Mercuria bought a cargo of high-sulphur straight-run fuel oil from Onex on CIF terms, incorporating the BP General Terms. After discharge, part of the cargo was found to contain elevated organic chlorides. Mercuria claimed breach, arguing that the contractual term “typicals” created a quality warranty and that the cargo no longer met the contractual description. The Court rejected those arguments, holding that “typicals” were descriptive only and not contractual guarantees, and that organic chlorides were not part of the agreed specifications. The cargo retained its commercial identity. The buyer’s claim was dismissed.

Read the full judgment here.

Trafigura PTE Ltd & another sued Prateek Gupta and others in the Commercial Court, alleging a multi-hundred-million-dollar fraud in nickel trading, where high-grade LME-grade nickel was purportedly sold but worthless material delivered instead. After a month-long trial, the Court found in favour of Trafigura, holding Gupta and the corporate defendants liable for the fraud and rejecting their defences. The judgment recognised that Trafigura was induced into contracts by false and fraudulent representations and awarded a decisive victory for the commodities trader. Trafigura succeeded and the defendants were found liable for fraudulent misrepresentation.

Read the full judgment here.

The charterers claimed overpaid hire under a time charter, alleging underperformance, while the owners denied liability and counterclaimed. The tribunal determined preliminary issues concerning weather evidence and performance warranties. It held that weather should be assessed by deck logs unless the charterers proved a consistent discrepancy, and that the burden of proof lay on them. Of two competing definitions, the tribunal found that the narrower “good weather” definition applied. The performance warranty was not continuing but applied only at the date of the charter. Positive currents were not to be discounted.

Read the full judgment here.