The Defendant Sellers sent a single Notice of Arbitration, for disputes arising from two separate FOB contracts containing identical arbitration clauses (GAFTA Rule 125), in which Sellers also questioned if the Claimant Buyers would “accept the two contracts/disputes be adjudicated under a single arbitration”. The Buyers subsequently challenged GAFTA’s award for lack of jurisdiction, disputing the single Notice was valid commencement of two arbitrations. The Court held it was because the Notice identified both disputes, s.14 AA should be interpreted “broadly and flexibly” with substance over form, and a reasonable reading of Sellers’ question showed an intention to commence both.

In a dispute over rent escalation provisions, Aircraft Lessors sought an order for disclosure of data held on mobile phones of the Saudi Arabian Lessee’s employees. The employer’s right to possession/ access to the phones, pursuant to Saudi law, could not be made out, nor (c.f. English law) could such right be presumed. Therefore, the necessary “control” element for an order under the Disclosure Pilot Scheme (PD51U) was absent, and the Court had no authority under CPR to order exercise of “best endeavours” to obtain documents not within a respondent’s control.

The Panamax Alexander (“PA”), bound for Iran, struck the Osios David (“OD”) and a Collision Jurisdiction Agreement on the ASG2 form (the ‘CJA’) was agreed, requiring security “reasonably satisfactory to the other”. OD refused PA’s Club LOU tendered, on the grounds that risk of non-payment under its sanction clause would “effectively render the LOU useless”. Alleging that the refusal was a breach of the CJA, PA sought as damages the cost of the alternative security provided. Although finding that, given the Iranian nexus, inclusion of the tendered clause was reasonable, the Court held that on a true construction, the CJA did not oblige OD to accept that security (it remaining the recipient’s choice to accept an LOU or arrest) and PA’s claim failed.

The Defendant Charterers consistently failed to pay or pay on time. The Claimant Owners, relying on the amended Shelltime 4 c/p, suspended performance, whilst claiming hire. When the 6th hire went unpaid, leaving some USD3.7m outstanding, Owners accepted Charterers’ conduct as a repudiation or renunciation, and elected to terminate the c/p and claim damages. The Court dismissed Charterers’ claim for wrongful termination, and held Owners were within their rights to suspend performance having regard purely to their own interests. Charterers’ consistent failure to pay on time had deprived Owners of “substantially the whole benefit” of the c/p and provided Owners with reasonable grounds for believing they would not receive them in the future. Charterers were held to be in both repudiatory and renunciatory breach, and summary judgment was granted.

The Claimants (disponent owners) let the Vessel on 8 months t/c to the Defendants, who ordered her to Venezuela to load a cargo not authorised for export. Following a resulting detention of almost 3 years, the Vessel was redelivered by the Claimants to head owners, who having declared a CTL, sold her for scrap. Some USD24m. for loss of earnings and other items (based on the t/c express indemnity and/or breach of the non-exposure to seizure clause) was awarded to the Claimants in a series of arbitration awards, the last of which deducted USD1.4m. for their saved dry-docking costs. The Court dismissed the Claimants’ challenge to this ‘saving’, confirming (i) no co-extensive dry-docking liability to head owners (ii) sufficient connection between t/c breach and saving and (iii) no reason why set-off could not be made against an express indemnity claim.

London jurisdiction having been agreed by the two owners following a collision in India, liability was admitted and quantum settled by an accepted pre-action ‘Part 36’ offer, appending a more detailed Settlement Agreement. In addition to its London lawyers’ and Club costs (comprised in the ‘Part 36’), the Claimant (in costs proceedings) sought additional fees of Indian agents, lawyers and P&I Correspondents and those of its H&M insurers’ Italian lawyers. The Court found that whilst these items might have been open for recovery under the ‘Part 36’ terms, they were in fact covered by the more detailed Settlement Agreement, which superseded the ‘Part 36’ terms.