Cash buyers (NKD) of the Shagang Giant purported to terminate the MOA on the grounds that Indian Covid-19 restrictions constituted force majeure preventing both Vessel from reaching outer anchorage (“the Delivery Location”) and Sellers (Bart) from transferring title as per the MOA. The Court disagreed. The force majeure clause was applicable to an inability to transfer title, not an inability to deliver; Sellers had not been precluded from the former, either by inability to reach the anchorage or by government restriction. In any event the Court found the Vessel had arrived at the Delivery Location. Sellers were entitled to the deposit (which exceeded the total losses claimed).

The BARECON stipulated for arbitration (LMAA terms / 3 arbitrators) where a failure to appoint within 14 days entitled the commencing party to appoint their arbitrator as sole arbitrator without notice. The Respondent’s appointee was subsequently unable to participate (compensation below firm’s charge-out rate), and the Claimant argued failure to appoint and entitlement to appoint theirs as sole arbitrator. The Court disagreed; although remuneration was not agreed at the time, there was no conditionality when the Respondent’s appointee accepted the appointment and the Respondent “had unequivocally communicated its appointment” to both the Claimant and their arbitrator.

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.