“After Defendants were awarded $59.8 million for damages caused by worldwide freezing orders against them, they were now able to recover 50% of their costs, and not 100%, since 1) Defendants did not recover their full damages claimed (some $387 million), 2) large financial investments were made towards issues on which Defendants failed, and 3) Defendants provided untruthful evidence in Court.”

“Carriers argued that their liability in respect of a parcel of some 2000mt fish oil could be restricted pursuant to Article IV Rule 5 of the Hague Rules which provides for limitation per "package or unit". The Court held that the word "unit" refers to a physical item that is not packaged, rather than to a unit of measurement. Therefore, Hague Rules limitation does not apply to bulk cargoes.”

“Where bills of lading were subject to English law and applied the Hague Rules, Owners sought but failed to obtain a declaration that "suit" in Article III rule 6 meant "suit in a jurisdiction applying the Hague Rules" such that proceedings by cargo interests at the place of delivery, Morocco (which applies the Hamburg Rules), did not interrupt the time bar.”

“A defendant found in the substantive proceedings to have been dishonest could nevertheless claim damages if a freezing order was wrongly obtained against him, and he has suffered loss through his funds being unavailable to him fora long period.”

“An Owner entitled to an indemnity from the Charterer was entitled to an immediate monetary payment, even when the judgment against which the indemnity was sought had an appeal pending.”

“A Notice of Abandonment issued by Owners to Insurers several months following a vessel's casualty was held to be effective, and Owners were therefore able to succeed in showing that the vessel was a complete total loss.”