“The Claimant Bank (claiming to be the holder of the B/L) had obtained an ex parte freezing order over the proceeds of sale of the Defendant Carrier's Vessel, as security for its claim for misdelivery (the cargo was delivered without production of the B/L as directed by Time Charterers, in return for an L01). The Court discharged the freezing order, finding that the Bank had failed to provide full and frank disclosure (in particular of financing arrangements with its customer, Time Charterers), disabling the Court from giving proper scrutiny at the ex parte stage to the Bank's assertion of 'good arguable case' on the merits.”

“The Commercial Court granted an anti-suit injunction against cargo insurers who - in breach of London arbitration - pursued contractual claims for cargo damage and salvage expenses in Brazil against the Vessels managers and her time charterers. The Court rejected the argument that Charterers' application for an injunction was delayed. Equally unsuccessful was the argument that the anti-suit injunction would breach the principle of comity, even though the Brazilian courts were already dealing with Charterers' jurisdictional challenge.”

“Following misdelivery of a coal cargo, B/L holders, NBF, started proceedings in Singapore and subsequently London Arbitration. The carrier, Times, challenged the Arbitration notice alleging wrong addressee and time bar. limes sought an anti-suit injunction on the basis that Singapore proceedings were in breach of the B/L London Arbitration clause. The Court found that the jurisdictional hurdle for a contractual anti-suit injunction was met and that NBF failed to show strong reasons — particularly the prejudice constituted by the time bar —to refuse the relief. However, relying on "discretionary factors", the Court found that this particular injunction required as a matter of "justice" a condition that limes guaranteed not to rely on any time bar in the arbitration.”

“The Defendant charterers (and sub-charterers) were ordered by the Court on 24 March to "provide forthwith such bail or other security as may be required to secure ...release" of a vessel arrested in Singapore. They failed to reach agreement as to the guarantee sought by the arresting bank. The Claimant disponent owners now sought an amendment to the order, such as would require security in the form sought by the arresting bank, or payment of the security sum (US$76 M) into the Singapore Court. The Commercial Court found that "as may be required" meant by the court of the place of arrest. However, in the exceptional circumstances in which Covid 19 prevented the Singapore Court ruling promptly, the Judge decided that he had jurisdiction to impose his solution, rejecting the amendment but ordering payment of the US$76 M into the Singapore Court.”

“Under a shipbuilding contract, the builder started arbitration first against the buyer, claiming US0170m and then its guarantor. Ruling on a preliminary issue as to whether the guarantee was a demand bond or a "see to it" guarantee, the Commercial Court found that on a true construction of the guarantee, there was no room for a presumption that it was a demand bond, therefore it was a "see to it" guarantee — bearing in mind in particular that this was not an undertaking by a financial institution but one given by a parent company.”

“Following arrest of their Vessel at Singapore on 12 March, in relation to a cargo mis-delivery claim, head owners demanded that time charterers place the security; the Claimant time charterers (alleging that in the interim they had 'lost out on a fixture) now sought an urgent injunction compelling the Defendant voyage charterers to provide the security to obtain the release of the Vessel. The Commercial Court on 26 March granted the injunction, dismissing the Defendants' argument that the loss of the fixture opportunity nullified the urgency, acknowledging instead the volatility of the market for large crude carriers and recognising the pressing need for the provision of security to obtain release of the Vessel.”