X-Press Mahanada (“X-PM”), inbound to Chattogram collided in the approaches with outgoing Burgan, both under pilotage. Burgan was in the wrong location but claimed this was due to avoiding a military vessel, SS (a non-party). The Court found that Burgan failed to right her position, failed to keep a proper lookout, or to alert SS promptly. X-PM was not blameless but her faults were not causative. SS was held to be significantly at fault and played a key part in the collision - the Court apportioning her 35% to blame. Burgan’s liability viz-a-viz X-PM was therefore 65%.

Legal Battle Over Salvage: Stela’s Collision, Rescue, and Jurisdiction Dispute

Delays on the Sagar Ratan due to a COVID-19 outbreak among the crew led to a dispute over hire payments. Pan Ocean (defendants) argued that the BIMCO Infectious or Contagious Diseases Clause applied, while Bunge maintained that the delay was not due to port conditions. The High Court ruled in Bunge’s favour, finding that the discharge port of Bayuqyan was not an“Affected Area” under the BIMCO Clause, as the delays were due to the crew’s infection rather than the port conditions. Consequently, the vessel was deemed off-hire during the period of delay and Pan Ocean’s claim for hire payments rejected.

In November 2016, two undersea electricity cables connecting England and France were damaged after a collision between the Stema Barge II and the Saga Sky, causing the anchors of both vessels to drag over the cables. RTE sought damages from the Stema Interests, Network Rail, and Costain, while Stema UK attempted to limit liability under the 1976 Limitation Convention. After multiple proceedings, the Court of Appeal ruled that Stema UK could not limit its liability under the Convention, and the High Court barred Stema UK from raising a new limitation defense, citing principles of res judicata and cause of action estoppel because it was not an operator and did not thus come within the ambit of the relevant statute.

Swire, charterers of the Vessel “Kiating” had contracted with the Port of Sheerness for discharge of the Vessel’s plywood cargo, which in the event, was found to have shifted on the voyage, requiring several more days discharging than estimated. As well as additional charges for stevedoring, shiftings and equipment (all paid by Swire) the Port claimed some GBP250,000 extra charges based on a contractual clause: “…where a vessel remains alongside…for a longer period than necessary for loading and discharging…a period toll will be charged for each 24 hour period…” namely £137.80 per day per linear metre of LOA. Dismissing the claim, the Court found that the clause was restricted to cases where a vessel failed to depart after operations. It also found that other powers of the Port to raise additional charges were inapplicable (as here) the Port had not actually incurred them; nor was a quantum meruit appropriate where the parties had stipulated the circumstances for additional charges.

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.