“The High Court decided a Defendant's application that the Liberian corporate Claimant secure its costs in a dispute relating to return of aircraft lease deposits. There was no information whatsoever on the Claimant's financial position (either publicly available or volunteered) and the Defendant had therefore satisfied the test of showing reason to believe that the Claimant would be unable to meet a costs award. However, as the claim and cross-claim were essentially two sides of the same coin (such that the costs incurred in defending the claim would be the same as those incurred in prosecuting the cross-claim) the Court considered it not just to make the order requested.”

“The Claimants purchased bunker from OW to supply two vessels in 2014. In respect of each supply, a Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction over disputes by reason of a London arbitration clause in OW's 2013 terms and pursuant to that, held t OW's claim for payment to have been validly assigned to ING Bank. The Claimants sought a re-hearing under s67 of the Arbitration Act. The Court declined to find that the (recently introduced) arbitration clause had not been brought to the Claimants' attention; that there was a course of dealing between the parties excluding the 2013 terms or that they were varied by correspondence. Nor did the Court's s.27 jurisdiction extend to re-hearing the assignment issue.”

“Clause 12(e) of a c/p on an amended Bimco SupplyTime 2017 form contained provided that payments of hire, fuel invoices and disbursements should be paid by Charterers within a certain number of days (21) from the date of receipt of the invoice without the possibility to discount or set-off. It also provided that if Charterer believed that the invoice was incorrect, they should still pay the undisputed portion of the invoice and withhold payment of the rest notifying the reason to the Owners by the due date. The Court dismissed Charterers' appeal based on the arguments that the clause was unclear or ambiguous as did not state that a failure to give notice would debar Charterers opportunity to raise any defence. The Court held that the clause was clear and is not analogous to a time bar clause or any other type of clause limiting liability and it was just the result of a commercial agreement between two equal bargaining powers that obliged charterers to raise bona fide disputes timeously as timeously payments are of essence in time charters. According to the Court a different interpretation would "make clause 12(e) a dead letter".”

“The Court declined to grant owners an anti-suit injunction restraining proceedings against them by buyers of a cargo of cycle oil carried on board their vessel. An implied contract (said by owners (i) to arise out of buyers' conduct and (ii) to include a B/L exclusive English law/jurisdiction clause -ECJ) even if established, was insufficient to satisfy Art.25 of the Recast Brussels Regulation: whilst the B/L was in writing, the required consent to it and its ECJ was not.”

“The Court dismissed the appeal against an arbitration award which ordered the Buyer, K, to pay the balance of the price under a contract of sale of a cargo of sunflower meal. K was victim of fraud as the payment was directed to an account other than that of the Seller, A, by a forged email. The Court upheld the Tribunal's ruling that K bore the risk of false instructions and its contractual obligation was to ensure that payment in cash was received by A in its nominated bank account. The Court however remitted the award back to the Tribunal on the grounds of serious irregularity in failing to hear K's argument as to validity of the true instructions.”

“The Commercial Court decides that the jurisdiction clause of a charterparty applies also to an agreement for settlement of disputes under the charter, even though the settlement agreement contained no jurisdiction clause.”