London arbitrators issued an Award in a dispute between V-Ships and Luna (managers of “M.T. “Priority”)  under a ship management agreement. The Award and a subsequent Injunction, restrained Luna from commencing or continuing any other civil claims arising out of the agreement; nonetheless, Luna and Lambros Stravelakis (adjudged by the Court to be “the directing mind and will of Luna”) persisted in proceedings in Greece. With judgment in the latter imminent, the Court granted V-Ships’ application for a Contempt of Court order against Mr Stravelakis, indicating a real possibility of a custodial sentence being imposed.

Read the full judgment here.

Olam sold a cargo of corn to Holbud, FOB one of 4 Black Sea ports (3 Ukraine, 1 Romania) on GAFTA 49 terms. On the day of the invasion in 2022, Olam opted for Ukraine origin and 2 days later nominated Pivdennyi. Holbud nominated a performing vessel under protest; Olam declared Force Majeure whereas Holbud held Olam in repudiatory breach and claimed damages. Pending a ruling by GAFTA, the parties agreed to keep the contract open for 6 weeks. Both GAFTA and, on appeal, the Court, found Olam’s FM declaration baseless and in repudiatory breach, but the Court overturned GAFTA’s award of substantial damages to Holbud, as the (non-substitutable) vessel had engaged in alternative employment before expiry of the 6 week period.

Read the full judgment here.

Claimant shipowners (Nefelia Shipping SA) issued English proceedings for general average contributions against Brazilian Defendant (Mosaic Fertilizantes do Brazil LTDA and Seguros Sura SA) and attempted service in Brazil via diplomatic channels. Severe administrative delays followed, forcing the Claimants to obtain two extensions of time for service. The Defendants challenged the second extension, but the Court held that the delays stemmed from the diplomatic process rather than any fault of the Claimants, and the extension was upheld.

Read the full judgment here.

AASTAR supplied rice to ADC under a series of 2021/22 contracts providing for GAFTA Arbitration; in July 2023, claiming sums contractually due, AASTAR sent notices of arbitration to generic email addresses for ADC.  In the absence of response from ADC, GAFTA appointed an Arbitrator who issued an Award in February 2024 awarding AASTAR most of its claim. In August 2024 (long after the Arbitration Act’s 28 day period) ADC alleged non-service of the notices and sought to challenge the Award under ss. 67 and 68 (procedural irregularity/breach of arbitration rules) and an extension of time to do so. The Court declined the extension as the contracts had not ruled out email service. Instead, it permitted a limited Application under s72, which contains no time limit and preserves ss. 67 and 68 rights for alleged parties who have taken no part in the Arbitration; the Application to be based upon the report of a single forensic IT expert.

Read the full judgment here.

On expiry of a 3 year bareboat C/P, Owners (Savory) were obliged to transfer title of the Vessel to Charterers (Ceto) if the latter had “paid all… sums due under this Charter and… under … [a] Management Agreement with [a 3rd party].” Despite earlier termination of the Management Agreement, sums remained due under it at the end of the C/P. The Court upheld Savory’s refusal to transfer title, ruling that the right was available only at the precise expiry of the C/P term and even later payment by Ceto of the sums would not revive the transfer obligation.

Read the full judgment here.

Four Vessels were chartered by a single Shelltime C/P providing for English law and jurisdiction. Disputes arose, and the Claimant Charterers issued proceedings against Middle Volga (Russian registered owners) and North Global. The Court upheld Middle Volga’s challenge to jurisdiction, finding that neither the Recap nor the drawn-up (but unsigned) C/P evidenced a contract with them; the Recap merely referred to the Q88, which in turn identified others as registered owners and North Global as disponent owners.  Further, a C/P declaration that “Owners” had no connection with Russia made it clear that North Global rather than Middle Volga were intended to be the contracting party.

Read the full judgment here.