“Charterers under an amended Synacomex CP, disputed demurrage, alleging that Owners' delay on the voyage/failure to ventilate the grain cargo/disinfect topsides caused cargo damage and infestation, prolonging discharge. The Court found that Owners were free to and did select a usual and reasonable route but although in breach of warranted speed, there was no specific resulting damage. Conversely the failures to ventilate and disinfect both constituted breaches of Owners' Hague Visby Rules Article Ill r2 duties and caused increased 'crust' and infestation respectively, giving rise to identifiable delays, to the extent of which Charterers were relieved from demurrage liability.”

“The Court refused Owners' application to admit the MAIB (UK investigatory body) report into arbitration proceedings with Charterers, further to the UK-flag vessel grounding in the UAE. Pursuant to the Merchant Shipping Regulations 2012, the only purpose of MAIB investigations is to improve maritime safety (and not to attribute or apportion blame). MAIB reports are therefore inadmissible in any judicial proceedings, unless a court determines that the interest of justice outweigh any prejudice to future accident safety investigation and relations between the UK and foreign states or international organisations. The Court found that in this case there was no reason to depart from the general rule, as maritime safety and international relations are of a greater importance than Owners' commercial interests in recovering their loss.”

“Under a loan agreement to fund vessel purchases, Lenders served an Acceleration Notice, following which Borrowers failed to pay the amount sought. Lenders relied upon 'No set-off and 'Event of Default' clauses and sought summary judgment. Borrowers alleged (i) that the Notice was invalid, (ii) placing Lenders in breach, (iii) preventing Borrowers' compliance. For the purposes of their application, Lenders accepted (i) to (iii) but relied solely on the 'No set-off' clause which, they said, stopped any application of the 'prevention principle' relied on by Borrowers. The Court held that that clause could not stop Borrowers from arguing that amounts were never due in the first place, therefore the summary judgment application failed, and Borrowers were free to argue their defence.”

“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.”