“Under a time-charter, Charterers underpaid the 4th (15- day) hire instalment but paid the 5th and 6th in full. The day after the 6th instalment fell due, Owners served an anti-technicality notice and withdrew the Vessel, relying upon the BIMCO Non Payment of Hire Clause: "If the hire is not received by midnight on the due date....Owners shall notify Charterers [and] If the payment is not received within 72 running hours, Owners may by giving written notice within 12 running hours withdraw the Vessel....". The High Court, on appeal, upheld the Tribunal's finding that the BIMCO clause was not engaged, because it could only be operated for the immediately preceding 15- day instalment (which was paid in full) and not for arrears, rendering Owners' withdrawal a "renunciatory/ repudiatory" breach.”

“The Commercial Court held that the "actionable fault" defence under Rule D of the York Antwerp Rules is available to the issuer of a General Average guarantee in the standard wording approved by the Association of Average Adjusters and the Institute of London Underwriters. Under this form, the guarantor has the obligation to "... pay any contributions to General Average ... which may hereafter be ascertained to be properly due ...". The Court found that the word "due" means the same as legally owing or payable; but GA does not become owing or payable unless and until a court rules on the merits of a Rule D defence ("properly"). This conclusion was meant to be in accordance with the settled practice and understanding of the shipping industry such that only very clear wording could justify departing from it.”

“Following the sale of a Capesize bulk carrier for demolition only and despite their undertaking not to trade her further, buyers continued to trade the vessel sought the lifting of the covenant. Sellers rejected that request (as the purpose of the sale was to reduce oversupply in the market) and sued for compensation, including 'negotiating damages' being a sum of money as might reasonably have been demanded by them in exchange for permitting the continuation of the breach of the covenant. The Commercial Court rejected the claim, holding that the undertaking not to trade was akin to a non-compete obligation which did not fall within the category of cases where 'negotiating damages' were available as a measure of a sellers' loss.”

“Owners and their co-insured Bank claimed on the war risk insurance following the boarding and setting on fire of the Vessel in the Gulf of Aden in 2011. The Court had struck out Owners' claim, for disobedience to a disclosure order. The Bank nonetheless continued, arguing that (even in the event of Owners' wilful default — as contended by insurers) it could rely on the insured perils. The Court found that the Vessel had indeed been scuttled and, as a result, "piracy" was unavailable, as objectively, the event was motivated by attempted fraud on insurers rather than fortuitous theft of the Vessel; "persons acting maliciously" did so in furtherance of the fraudulent plan rather than by spite or ill-will; the same applied to "malicious mischief'; senseless rather than orchestrated damage was required for "vandalism" and an intention to frustrate intended use of property for "sabotage". The Bank's claim therefore failed.”

“An amended Baltimore Form C Berth Grain CP provided in CI.14 that NOR to load "must be delivered ... between 0800 hours and 1700 hours ..Monday to Friday, between 0800 ... and 1100 ... on Saturday, ....Laytime is to commence 0800 hours the next working day...." and in CI.16 for a right to cancel should NOR "not be delivered as per Clause 14 by...noon on... [10th May]." NOR was tendered at 0704 on Sunday 10 May. On appeal from an arbitration, the Court upheld Charterers' cancellation, holding that NOR could not be served on a Sunday: terms identifying what is a valid NOR have a commercial purpose and to hold that an NOR could be valid for one purpose (laytime) but not another (cancelling) would create uncertainty in the face of the parties' attempt to create certainty.”

“BSGR challenged an arbitration award against it for US$1.247 billion arising out of a joint venture with Vale exploiting iron ore deposits in Guinea. The Court declined BSGR's application to set aside an order granting Vale permission to enforce the award as a judgment — or to stay the same — on the grounds that there was a presumption that enforcement could proceed notwithstanding the challenge, there was no public policy defence, the challenge (being based solely on arbitrator bias) was not one obviously going to succeed, there was no evidence that if the challenge succeeded Vale would be unable to repay, nor any other concerns militating against enforcement.”