Claimant “Christos Theo” claimed for damage sustained in agrounding following a ‘near miss’ with Defendant “Aliki”. Followingexchange of pleadings in which “Aliki” alleged and, in the Court’s view,demonstrated, a prima facie case that the “Christos Theo” main enginemalfunctioned, preventing it from being put astern, the Defendant applied forspecific disclosure of material capturing the incident and also as to priorproblems/ failings with the main engine.  The Court found the Claimants’assertion that searches revealed no such material “defies belief” andexplanations were demonstrably wrong or incomplete. An Order was made forsearches by the Claimant for numerous items of disclosure, supported ifnecessary by verification statement. The Court directed that the Claimant payall costs of the application, ordering an interim payment of GBP70,000.

Following a fire on m/y "Big Kahuna" spreading to other vessels in a Corfu marina and sinking some, including the 1929 wooden ketch "Halcyon”, the English insurers and Owners of the former commenced Limitation proceedings in the English Court. "Halcyon" subsequently sought damages in the Greek Courts (where Limitation was 3x higher) and applied to stay the English action. Declining, the Court ruled that there was no question of the (English interests) "Big Kahuna" 'forum shopping' and no reason why Limitation and underlying claim could not be tried in separate jurisdictions.

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.