A recap of a voyage fixture, containing an English law/ London arbitration clause, was expressed to be “subject shipper/ receivers approval….”. Before the “subject” was lifted, Charterers declined to proceed as the required “Rightship” approval was missing. Setting aside the Award of the Tribunal (upholding a concluded C/P and finding Charterers in repudiatory breach of it), the Court found that in the absence of the lifted subject – a precondition – there was no contract, no severable arbitration clause, and therefore no jurisdiction on the Tribunal’s part to rule on Charterers’ liability.

The Claimant obtained summary Judgment on its claim against the Defendant issuer of LOIs enabling delivery without B/Ls. The Defendant had sought to amend its admissions (that the LOIs had been engaged) claiming the LOIs had been executed without authority. However, its application was dismissed by the Court who found that it had failed to offer evidence that only the directors were authorised to sign, and to show it had a realistically arguable case of lack of authority. In any case, the Court accepted that any unauthorised action would have been ratified by the Defendant seeking and obtaining delivery on the basis of the LOIs.

Time Charterers Navig8 sought costs on an indemnity basis, together with interest on damages awarded, arguing Voyage Charterers Aeturnum’s abrupt disengagement from the proceedings and their failure to comply with an interim injunction (to replace Navig8’s guarantee securing release of the arrested vessel) were “out of the norm”, and resulted in lengthier and costlier proceedings. The Court held indemnity costs were justifiable, and that Aeternum’s disengagement part way through had undoubtedly increased costs. Interest was awarded with the appropriate rate held to be the three-month USD LIBOR plus uplift of 2.5% compounded at three-monthly rests.

Time Charterers Navig8 sought costs on an indemnity basis, together with interest on damages awarded, arguing Voyage Charterers Aeturnum’s abrupt disengagement from the proceedings and their failure to comply with an interim injunction (to replace Navig8’s guarantee securing release of the arrested vessel) were “out of the norm”, and resulted in lengthier and costlier proceedings. The Court held indemnity costs were justifiable, and that Aeternum’s disengagement part way through had undoubtedly increased costs. Interest was awarded with the appropriate rate held to be the three-month USD LIBOR plus uplift of 2.5% compounded at three-monthly rests.

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.