“A time charter performance warranty was based on "good weather condition" (Beaufort 4 etc.) but without specifying the period it must subsist in order to qualify. The Tribunal rejected an argument that at least 12 hours of good or bad weather in any noon to noon period should characterise weather. Although performance was ultimately decided on other grounds, the Tribunal suggested that a better method was to look at weather conditions at the beginning and end each 6-hour period within any noon to noon 24 hours in order to characterise a weather day.”

“A T/C description clause providing "above speed and consumption....with a tolerance of 5pct about" [emphasis added] did not imply a single 5% allowance where each of speed and consumption had been expressed in "about" terms. Further, "No negative influence of currents/swell" meant that those conditions did not qualify as good weather but positive currents and swell were to be ignored. And an off hire claim was held to be an attempted performance claim via the back door and in the absence of a stoppage or proof of time loss, failed.”

“A Tribunal held that a time charter providing "liability for cargo claims... shall be apportioned/settled as specified by the Interclub... Agreement... 1996 and its subsequent amendments..." did not incorporate Clause 9 of the ICA as added in 2011 - providing for the counter-securing of cargo claims — but only those parts of the ICA dealing with settlement and apportionment.”

“By a COA involving several voyages on amended Asbatankvoy terms, Owners' demurrage claims were subject to a 30-day documentary time-bar, running from the day after discharge completed, requiring supporting material to be sent "to Charterers". Owners sent documentation to brokers whose name appeared in a commission clause of the charters. The Tribunal found that those brokers were intermediated brokers whose principals were neither Owners nor Charterers and whose only duty was to pass on messages up and down the chartering chain. Owners could not therefore establish receipt of the documentation by Charterers in time and their claims were time barred.”

“The Tribunal found that Sellers had exceeded the contractually specified period of delay, such that Buyers were entitled to terminate a shipbuilding contract and recover the instalments advanced; The Tribunal rejected Sellers' contentions for an implied term as to mutual co-operation and non-impeding, or the application of the 'Prevention Principle' on the grounds that the sophisticated express terms left no room for such provisions.”

“The sellers of a road salt cargo claimed that the buyers were in repudiatory breach of the sale contract for not providing the letter of credit on time. The Tribunal found that the provision of a letter of credit was to be read as an innominate term and not a condition as the failure to provide it would have not deprived the sellers of the whole benefit of the contract, i.e. the sale of salt and the expected profit.”