“An amended Asbatankvoy covered one of two parcels carried for different charterers. Laytime / demurrage was to be pro-rated according to B/L quantities. The CP specified that a demurrage claim required "claim/invoice in writing and all supporting documents... within [90] days after completion of discharge". The SOF incorrectly recorded B/L quantities. The Court allowed an appeal from an arbitration, finding that the B/Ls themselves should have been provided. Owners' claim for US$56,049.36 demurrage was time-barred.”

“The Claimants sought declarations that their termination notices, served on the defendant operators of gas fields, pursuant to joint operating agreements ("JOAs"), were valid and effective. The JOAs contained absolute and unqualified rights of termination. The defendants argued that the rights were subject to implied obligations of good faith and consideration of the best interests of the gas fields. In the context of sophisticated commercial parties and the absence of industry practice, the Court found no reason to qualify the express absolute rights by any such implied terms.”

“COSCO chartered the Vessel to Britannia Bulkers ("Bulkers") in 2007. A recap evidenced a sub charter of the Vessel to ABT in 2008 but was silent as to the disponent owner. COSCO, as assignee of Bulkers, brought claims in arbitration against ABT under the sub-CP. ABT contended that its counterparty was Bulkers' parent, Britannia Bulk, hence there was no arbitration agreement in the sub-CP operable on behalf of Bulkers. The Court preferred material contemporaneous with the Recap (LOUs, payment instructions) over post-contractual evidence (a later draft CP) and upheld the Tribunal's ruling that Bulkers, the only entity entitled to trade the Vessel under the 2007 charter, was the sub-CP counterparty, such that the Tribunal had jurisdiction over COSCO's claim.”

“Savoy failed to perform a contract for the sale of wheat to Trans-Oil, who commenced GAFTA arbitration against Savoy and obtained a world-wide freezing order (WWFO) against them. Trans-Oil sought to have the WWFO extended to include Mr Melnykov but the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to do so, Trans-Oil having failed to show that he was a party to the contract, personally liable on it, the real principal, or a 'necessary and proper party' to the arbitration, or that he would dissipate Savoy's assets in the jurisdiction. Trans-Oil also failed to establish that Mr Melnykov was a de facto director/principal of Savoy, such as would allow the Court to add him to the penal notice of the WWFO.”

“Gunvor sold 60,000mt gasoil to ARC, for delivery July 2014, with payment (due before delivery) calculated by reference to a contemporaneous Platts index. The parties agreed to delay delivery to September, but without adjusting the pricing clause. Gunvor invoiced at the July price but ARC paid at the lower September rate. Gunvor delivered a quantity less than 60,000 mt, commensurate with the July price, selling the balance to a third party. Gunvor sought damages arising out of ARC's failure to pay the full price. The Court rejected ARC's arguments that the price index automatically moved with delivery date, or that the contract was so varied, and held that the contract was for "pre-payment" at the July rates in the absence of any clear link to delivery date.”

“An amended Asbatankvoy C/P Clause specified that any claim for demurrage would be waived unless received by Charterers in writing with all supporting documents within 90 days of completion of discharge. The Clause identified supporting documents as: (a) Time logs, (b) NORs, (c) Pumping Logs and (d) Letters of Protests. Whilst (a) and (b) accompanied the (timely) claim, (c) and (d) did not, as already provided (as required by another clause) at an earlier stage. The Court held that the Clause did not contain any express requirement that supporting documents all had to be provided at the same time — or together with the claim. Furthermore, as (c) and (d) were identified by the Clause as supporting documents, Charterers should have been alerted to their status upon first receipt, such that Owners were not obliged to re-submit them. Charterers' application for summary judgment based on a time-bar defence was therefore dismissed.”