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.

Following an initial award of unpaid hire to Owners, the Tribunal ordered Charterers to secure, in the sum of GBP 270,000, Owners’ costs of defending counterclaims, by means of 1^st class bank guarantee issued in England. Following requests for variation, the sum was ordered to be deposited with Owners’ solicitors, to be held on escrow terms. Charterers’ solicitors were thereupon dis-instructed, and following a peremptory order served at Charterers’ registered office (and other addresses) remained unsatisfied, the Tribunal, pursuant to s.41(6) of the Act, dismissed Charterers’ counterclaims, directing that Charterers bear their own costs relating to them.

The Claimant as seller of a quantity of orange pulp ‘wash’ sought payment of the contract price and damages for the Defendant buyer’s refusal to take delivery. However, although the contract referred to a quantity of 3,600mt/1200mt per year over a 3-year period, a contract price was only specified for the first 400mt. The Court found that there was no more than an unenforceable ‘agreement to agree’ as regards the remaining quantity/price and that the buyer was entitled to refuse delivery of, and payment for, the first year’s remaining 800mt. For the same reason, the Claimant seller (having terminated the contract) was not entitled to damages for a repudiatory breach by the buyer.

Sellers of a Cape-size bulk carrier failed to serve timely NOR (not having made reasonable arrangements to disembark crew). Buyers lawfully cancelled. Based on Clause 14 of the NSF 2012  form MOA, providing “due compensation” for loss and expense if the failure is due to “proven negligence”, the Tribunal awarded loss of bargain damages to Buyers. On appeal, the Court ruled that in the absence (as here) of a repudiatory breach, no such damages are recoverable.