Russian courts imposed astronomical financial penalties on Google, amounting to sums as high as £102 nonillion - figures described as “extravagant, indeed other-worldly, sums of money.” The penalties, bearing no relation to compensatory damages, were imposed as repeated penalty payments, doubling periodically with no cap. Seeking to prevent enforcement outside Russia, Google argued that the sums were punitive, unprecedented, and imposed in breach of contractual jurisdiction clauses.

Time Charterers redelivered 2 Vessels some days late. Some months earlier, Owners had entered MOAs for the sale of both Vessels. Arbitrators determined a preliminary issue on the assumptions that (i) the T/Crates had risen substantially since conclusion of the fixtures and (ii) Ownerswould not have re-let after timeous redeliveries but simply delivered to Buyers. The Tribunal found in these circumstances that Owners were entitled to “substantial damages, compensation or other monetary relief”. On appeal, the Court disagreed; in the normal course damages would compensate for loss of opportunity to take advantage of the market rate, but here Owners lost no such opportunity because of the MOAs, so only nominal damages were appropriate.

Immediately after shipment on board O’s Vessel of a cargo of naptha, Charterers (‘C’) became subject to US sanctions. O purportedly terminated the C/P and in Arbitration sought an order for sale of the cargo, with the proceeds payable to a blocked US a/c in accordance with a US license. C opposes the sale and claims damages for conversion of its cargo, O (it says) being outside the reach of US sanctions. C contends that proceeds of sale should be paid into the English Court in support of the arbitration. The Court agreed that given the underlying arbitration, payment to Court was the appropriate option, outweighing O’s concerns about US prosecution, which the Court assessed as very low.

The Claimants sought a “Norwich Pharmacal” order against a firm of Solicitors requiring them to disclose the identity of a London-based intelligence consultancy which obtained a report from an alleged wrongdoer, said by the Claimants to be a forgery designed to deceive the Court and Tribunal in other proceedings, defrauding the Claimants of some USD 300m. The Court granted the Order on the grounds that it was a necessary and proportionate response to the alleged wrongdoing.

The Claimant purchased three copper consignments carried by Maersk fromDubai in containers under clean, straight-consigned bills of lading (B/Ls).Upon arrival in Piraeus, the containers were found to contain concrete blocks,weighing less than 50% of the expected amount and of no value. With theshippers having vanished, the Claimants contended that Maersk should havesuspected an issue and claused the B/Ls. However, the Court ruled that Maerskhad no reasonable means to verify the contents, absolving it of liability underHague Rules Art. III r.3(c) and for negligent misstatement (of unawareness). Nospecial duty of care applied (which might arise under a straight-consignedbill), as the carrier had no reason to suspect fraud.

Owners delivered cargoes without production of B/Ls against D1’s (charterers’) LOIs (in Club-recommended form, with an exclusive English jurisdiction clause). D1 became insolvent and Owners’ claims for indemnification under the LOIs were directed to D2 (B/L shippers) and Ds 3-5 (other “Exporters”). Setting aside service of the Claim, the Court ruled that D2 was not D1’s undisclosed principal, nor had D2 authorised issue of LOIs on behalf of Ds 3-5, thus there was no English Jurisdiction clause between Owners and anyone other than insolvent D1.