“HSBC advanced USD3Om for the acquisition of 2 vessels. A subsequent fall in the freight market resulted in the owning entities being in breach of the financing arrangements. The Bank sought to enforce its claim under the personal guarantees (which were subject to English jurisdiction but Greek law). The guarantor argued that the Bank's conduct had been contrary to a principle of "good faith" enshrined in Greek law. The High Court found that the allegations against the Bank — including a) failing to compromise with borrowers b) taking time to negotiate debt restructuring, c) refusing a 'haircut' to the debtor and d) preferring one customer to another — were not made out and that the Bank's claim succeeded in full.”

“Unsuccessful shareholder respondents to an LCIA arbitration commenced Court proceedings under s68 of the Arbitration Act alleging "serious irregularity" on the basis of bias, non-disclosure and other defects. The arbitration claimants sought security for their costs of defending the challenge and shortly afterwards the shareholders discontinued their s68 challenges. Given the weakness of the allegations, and the fact that security would have been awarded had the application continued, the Court ordered that the shareholders bear the claimants' costs of both the challenge and the security application on an indemnity basis.”

“Insured shipowners' claim under a marine policy of kidnap and ransom was paid by insurers pursuant to a settlement agreement. Insurers then sought damages against their insured's director, domiciled in Greece, for procuring a breach of the settlement agreement (by depriving them of a subrogated claim for cargo's GA contribution and failing to account for such GA contributions as were received). The director was held to have submitted to the English Court's jurisdiction by failing to raise a challenge in time. The Court found that it would have had jurisdiction in any event (under Art. 7(2) of the Recast Brussels Regulation) in relation to the accounting under the settlement agreement, as this was to occur in England; however, (but for the submission) it would not have had jurisdiction over the unrecoverable GA, as that loss was sustained in Oman, where the voyage was abandoned after the release of the vessel by pirates.”

“Seemingly contradictory jurisdiction clauses were reconciled by the Commercial Court which, in a final order, restrained the defendant from pursuing proceedings under an insurance policy before the courts of the State of Washington. The Commercial Court found that the parties had agreed London arbitration and that the U.S. jurisdiction clauses should be read so as to apply only in the context of enforcing an arbitration award (or obtaining jurisdiction in the event that the parties dispensed with arbitration).”

“Pursuant to contracts, Cargill made advance payments (USD61m) to Uttam for the purchase of steel, obliging Uttam either to provide steel to that value or refund the advance. Uttam did neither and Cargill sought and obtained summary judgment. The Court declined to hold that Cargill's contractually separate failure to take up Uttam's other offers of steel constituted a defence (based on the 'prevention principle') with a reasonable prospect of success.”

“In connection with a contested constructive total loss claim under a war risks policy on the vessel "Brillante Virtuoso", the defendant underwriters — who allege that the vessel was "scuttled" by her Owner — applied for an order to reveal the hitherto protected identity of a key witness in the action. Despite the order being opposed by City of London Police, the Court granted the application because the true identity was already known to those who could pose a threat to the witness, therefore the anonymity was not necessary to avoid harm to him or his relatives.”