“Under a bareboat charter Guarantee, charterers' parent guaranteed, as primary obligors, charterers' performance of and payments under the charter and undertook to pay "any amount(s) demanded up to ...US$3,000,000... on demand notwithstanding any dispute between [owners and charterers]. The Court found that the Guarantor was liable even if the underlying liability (and not just quantum, as argued) was in dispute.”

“The Buyer cancelled an aircraft purchase contract, alleging Seller's breach of warranty of title (the Seller intending to acquire the aircraft with completion funds from the Buyer). In dismissing the Buyer's claim for return of the holding deposit, the Court found that the warranty as to title only applied at the time of delivery, thus the Seller was not obliged to produce title documents prior to that. In cancelling, the Buyer was in repudiatory breach such that its complaint that the Seller failed to have the aircraft at the delivery location must also fail.”

“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.”