“Following a fire on board a laden tanker (possibly started deliberately by the Chief Engineer), cargo owners Glencore sought recovery from shipowners for their proportion of salvage (and costs) and challenged shipowners' entitlement to GA contribution. The Court ruled on preliminary issues as to barratry and Article IV r2(b) (fire) and (q) (other cause) of the Hague Visby Rules. Barratry required a deliberate and wrongful act prejudicing owners or cargo; the wrongful element must involve something generally recognised as a crime or a deliberate or reckless breach of duty to shipowners; if therefore the C/E was suffering from a clinical mental disorder, the act would not be barratrous. However, Art IV r2(b) can still apply to a deliberately started or barratrous fire, although not r2(q).”

“The owners of a tanker were refused contribution to general average of some USD 2.1 million as the engine breakdown suffered was considered to be the result of an actionable fault in failing to make the vessel seaworthy. The failure of a crankshaft main bearing was caused by a damaged filter failing to remove harmful particles from the lub oil. Deflection readings had earlier indicated that something was wrong, but they were ignored.”

“Dealing with an unexplored corner last week the Commercial Court ruled that the Owners' obligation to proceed with "utmost despatch" or "use all convenient speed" will extend to cases where there is no provision as to ERTL or ETA, but merely a cancelling date. The laycan will still indicate the period of time within which the approach voyage should commence so that the Vessel arrives at the loading port by the cancelling date.”

“Time Charterers, the Venezuelan state-owned PDVSA, ordered the vessel to load their crude oil cargo in Venezuela for delivery in the Bahamas (although subsequently vessel and cargo diverted to Curacao). As a consequence of Charterers' failures to pay hire in full, Owners notified the exercise of their charterparty lien over the cargo, commenced London arbitration and sought an order from the High Court for sale of the cargo pursuant to s.44 (2) (d) of the Arbitration Act. In granting the order, the Court found that there was the necessary nexus between cargo and proceedings (namely the exercise of a contractual lien over the defendants' cargo in order to secure the claim in arbitration). The Court made no finding as to what the position would be had the cargo been owned by a third party. It is also significant that the order was to take effect in a Dutch overseas territory, giving Owners access to EU judgment enforcement.”

“Pursuant to a settlement agreement, H&M underwriters paid sums to its insured's Netherlands-based Bank, following the loss of the Vessel `Atlantik Confidence'. The insurers have now sought to recover those sums on the basis that the Vessel had been deliberately cast away. The Court found that the exclusive (English) jurisdiction clauses in the policy and in the settlement agreement did not bind the Bank. However, in so far as underwriters' claim was based on a tort (namely the insured's misrepresentation on its own and the Bank's behalf as to the cause of the loss) that tort was committed in England, giving the Court jurisdiction over the Bank.”

“A prime diamond trader terminated the agency contract with its long-standing 'London Sights' broker on the grounds that the latter's role had become redundant. The Court found the principal in breach of the fixed-term agreement and awarded the agent compensation being (a) earnings during a reasonable notice period and (b) loss of net future income stream from commissions. Diamonds are not forever, as the learned Judge observed.”