In the context of an arbitration relating a claim under a film-production policy, the insurer applied to Court for the removal of the sole arbitrator on the ground of apparent bias due to his knowledge of and attitude towards the insured's factual and expert witnesses and some remarks that he did not intend hear the insured’s expert witnesses because he knew them “all personally extremely well” as "exceptional people in their fields". The judge found no actual or apparent bias based purely on his past industry relationship with the witnesses. Nevertheless, the arbitrator was removed because the suggestion that it was unnecessary to cross-examine the insured’s expert witnesses was plainly not an expression of a balanced and impartial view as it gave rise to an apprehension that he had pre-determined favourable views, thereby pre-judging the merits of the dispute.

The Claimant Salvors of the Suez Canal-grounded “Ever Given”, sought remuneration from the Defendant Owners pursuant to the Salvage Convention or at common law. The Court decided a preliminary issue as to whether (as Owners argued) remuneration was governed by a concluded binding agreement (based on some ‘main terms’ plus a confirmation). The Owners’ defence failed as it was found that, by their exchanges and conduct objectively assessed, the parties did not purport to conclude a binding contract but merely reached an agreement as to the remuneration terms for a wider contract that was being negotiated.

“Sydney” collided with “Apollo” in the approaches to Tianjin, causing collective damage of some USD13.5m. The Court found that despite adequate manning and look-out, the “Apollo” Master had failed to appreciate how the Vessels were approaching each-other (which was in fact port to port) and attempted to cross ahead of “Sydney” “in flagrant breach of the crossing rule”. Despite some criticisms of “Sydney” none was found to be causative, and “Apollo” was held 100% responsible.

A, owner of a transatlantic yacht contracted with H, a yacht transportation company, for her delivery to Delaware, USA. The yacht set sail in mid-November, her route being via Spain, Azores, Bermuda (the “northern route”). Severe weather and an accumulation of boat defects convinced the crew to put back to the Azores for repairs. Ultimately another contractor completed the transit the following year. A relied on a repudiatory breach by H and claimed its extra delivery charges, repair costs and marina fees citing A’s choice of the wrong route, failure to assess weather conditions, and damaging the yacht. The Court found that H’s planning and execution of the voyage was carried out with the necessary skill and care; the damage was attributable to multiple manufacturing defects. There was no breach and H was awarded its counterclaim for unpaid sums under the contract.

Panamax Alexander (“PA”) was moored in a narrow part of the Suez Canal awaiting repairs/towage following a collision the previous day. NYK Falcon (“F”) and NYK Orpheus (“O”) passed by PA as part of a convoy. After F cleared PA the latter’s stern ropes parted and she swung into the channel. O collided with her. In consolidated proceedings the Court found F “clumsy” in the passing manoeuvre but greater blame lay with PA’s poor mooring and reaction and O’s excessive speed. PA and O were more than doubly to blame. Pa and O were ordered to pay 5/12 of the other damages and F 1/6 of PA’s.

The MSC Flaminia suffered a cargo fire and explosion (originating in laden containers) causing, sadly, loss of life and personal injury and giving rise to numerous claims including for cargo damage. Time Charterers (MSC) sought to limit their liability viz a viz Owners for damage to the Vessel, pursuant to Art.2.1 of the Amended 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability: “Claims in respect of … loss or damage to property…occurring on board….and consequential loss”. MSC argued that Vessel damage was “consequential loss” flowing from cargo damage thus entitling them to limit under Art. 2.1. The Court disagreed: Owners’ claim was for Vessel damage, not cargo damage. MSC were solely time charterers, not cargo owners. Owners’ claim was not, therefore, limitable.