“Beta indicated an inability to provide biofuel to Vitol under a FOB contract; Vitol then simply failed to nominate a vessel in time, later sending a notice of contractual termination. Vitol contended that its failure to nominate was tantamount to acceptance of Beta's renunciatory breach, entitling it to claim damages. Beta argued that its obligation to deliver was conditional upon timely nomination. The Court concluded that Vitol's conduct was not sufficiently clear and unequivocal as to constitute acceptance of a renunciatory breach. However, in the circumstances the obligation to nominate was "stripped of its purpose and otiose" and could not amount to a pre-condition. Therefore, Beta was not relieved of its obligations and Vitol was entitled to damages.”

“An agreement for the operation of Nigerian oil wells contained a London arbitration clause and the High Court issued an injunction in support of the arbitration, restraining the defendants from taking certain default steps under the agreement; the Court ruled that default steps had been taken, in breach of the injunction, and held the defendants to be in Contempt of Court.”

“A Charterparty on an amended BPVoy4 form provided an enhanced and escalating demurrage rate in the event of revised voyage orders, including stopping and waiting. In construing the relevant clauses, the Court held that the enhanced rate was not triggered in the absence of a clear instruction, prior to NOR, to stop and wait; a passive failure to give orders, post-NOR, even where such failure was driven by commercial reasons, was not a trigger.”

“In breach of a London arbitration clause, charterers commenced substantive proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction in addition to arresting the vessel as security for their claim. The English Court had granted the owners (ex-parte) an anti-suit injunction, in accordance with normal principles. However, the Court later declined to grant further injunctive relief or order discontinuance of the foreign proceedings (including the 'tainted' arrest) in circumstances where charterers had in the meantime applied to the foreign court for a stay of the substantive proceedings. In other words, charterers had cured the historic breach by the time of the present hearing so no further injunctive relief was appropriate.”

“After the outbreak of norovirus on-board, the Claimant cruise line agents sought an indemnity from Charterers' Liability insurers for payments to passengers following curtailment of the voyage. The Court found that the Claimant was not a contracting carrier under the Athens Convention and instead passengers' claims lay against the Tour Operators with whom they had a contractual relationship. The Claimant, therefore, had incurred "no losses costs or expenses as Charterer", money having been refunded to passengers for commercial and reputational reasons only. “

“The Court stated that the Hague-Visby Rules apply not only to contracts of carriage covered by bills of lading but also when waybills are issued instead. The Court also held that Article IV.5(c) of the Hague-Visby Rules does not require enumeration of the cargo inside a container, pallet or similar article of transport "as packed", being sufficient that the number of units or packages is exactly stated in the bill. Here the cargo consisted of unpackaged tuna loins identified as "units" for the purposes of the Rules. “