Quadra, having lost paid-for goods in the “Agroinvestgroup Fraud”, sought reimbursement under their Cargo Policy covering “declared shipments….storage operations”. Underwriters declined, arguing that there was no proof of lost goods nor any insurable interest. The Court dismissed Quadra’s argument that the Policy covered the entire “adventure” and agreed that it was restricted to goods which had existed. But it accepted Quadra’s evidence in this regard and as Quadra had paid the price and had a right to immediate possession of the goods, it had an insurable interest and a right to an indemnity.

When US sanctions applied to Charterers, Owners invoked the force majeure clause of the COA. Charterers started arbitration and the Tribunal found that Owners’ refusal to accept payment in € instead of $ was a failure to exercise “reasonable endeavours” specified for reliance on the force majeure clause. The Court overruled the Tribunal, finding that the “drastic impact of sanctions” would not be limited to the payment aspect but involve further “penalties” for continuing to perform a contract with a sanctioned party. Those problems would not have been overcome by payment in €, so the “reasonable endeavours” provision did not oblige Owners to accept non-contractual performance and Owners were not precluded from reliance on the clause.

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.