“A dispute arose under a Shelltime 4 charter following a claim by cargo receivers at Aqaba that the cargo was off-spec. Although the Tribunal found that (i) the receivers' claim was neither against Owners nor one in rem (ii) the cargo had been off-spec prior to loading, it held that it was nevertheless Owners' obligation to secure the release of their detained Vessel. In the circumstances however the Tribunal found that the 21 day delay pending provision of security was not unreasonable and the Vessel was not off-hire during this time.”

“A time charter clause provided for charterers to reimburse a capped amount for extra insurances incurred by owners "for transit from Yanbu to India"; owners contended that the part of the premium attributable to calls in both places fell outside the cap and was payable on top. The Tribunal held that "transit" here included both port calls and the time in motion in between and so the corresponding premium fell within the cap.”

“Under a trip time charter, charterers claimed that the vessel was delayed by slow operation of the vessel's cranes although the gear was found in good condition. The technical data were not set out in the charter and the Tribunal, dismissing the claim, found that there was no warranty as to crane speed, nor any breakdowns or breach of maintenance obligations. The Tribunal found also that charterers failed to establish any warranty as to the vessel's speed and consumption at eco speed: owners had merely warranted receipt of builders' information. For that reason, the Tribunal had also declined to order disclosure of previous fixture eco-performance.”

“After tendering NOR under an amended Asbatankvoy charter and waiting some 15 days to load, Owners accepted Charterers' cancellation' as a repudiatory breach and claimed accrued demurrage as well as losses incurred on substitute business. The Tribunal dismissed Charterers' attempt to rely upon a 3 month demurrage time bar running from completion of discharge, ruling that if there was no discharge, there was no time bar. Although Owners' demurrage claim succeeded in full, their damages claim entirely failed and as a result Owners were restricted to an 80% costs recovery.”

“Even when Charterers failed to pay hire on time, Owners' failure to allow the full time provided under an anti-technicality clause meant that their withdrawal was premature and repudiatory. Owners' notice was also defective in that it was not phrased as an ultimatum but as a reminder.”

“The first Glencore knew of an arbitration claim against it was when it received the Tribunal's Award. The Commercial Court set aside the Award, finding that neither the arbitration notice nor subsequent documentation had been effectively served upon Glencore. All notices and documents had been served by email to a junior employee who had some involvement in operational post-fixture matters, but no involvement in the handling of the dispute and no actual or ostensible authority to accept service of proceedings. Mr Justice Popplewell noted that whilst service by email is capable of being an "effective means" within the meaning of s.76(3) of the Arbitration Act, there is no principle that service by email should be available in most cases; service on a particular individual in a particular case may not be effective.”