The Tribunal held that as sanctions had prevented receivers’ payment and Iran stopped issuing import permits, it became impossible for Charterers to perform their obligations under the COA, triggering the force majeure clause contained therein. Owners appealed under s.69 AA, inter alia, on the point of law of whether Charterers were entitled to invoke force majeure for an inability to make payments and import the goods into Iran. The Court found such questions of law “thinly veiled challenges to the Tribunal’s findings of fact” and dismissed the appeal.

The Claimant Owners of 2 demise (Barecon 2001) chartered vessels notified “Events of Default and Termination” when the individual beneficially owning the Defendant charterers was declared by the U.S. a “Special Designated Global Terrorist”. The Court dismissed Charterers’ challenge to Owners’ rights to termination and repossession, finding that (i) under the C/Ps neither step required further notices, both were justified (ii) a thwarted purchase option did not constitute an unenforceable “penalty” and (iii) whilst equitable relief from forfeiture might apply to a demise with purchase option, it was inappropriate here due to Charterers’ misconduct (including misleading the Court).

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.