In a dispute between those interested in a Liberian one-ship company, the Claimant Iranian national (resident in Qatar) claimed that the 1st Defendant Iranian national (resident in England and Greece) had failed to honour a Trust and had ‘stolen’ and sold the subject Vessel, whereas the latter claimed that the shares (and Vessel) were his outright (having been exchanged for Persian carpets worth some USD9m). The present judgment involved D1’s application for security for costs, which the Court granted, as it met the CPR gateway tests and the “factual complication” (including allegations of fraud, forgeries and misconduct) made it impossible for the Court to investigate the merits and form a view on the likely success or otherwise of the claim by the time it reached trial.

An amended NYPE 93 placed the Vessel off-hire in case of hold inspection failure “until the vessel … passes”. The Tribunal implied Charterers’ obligation to carry out any reinspection with reasonable diligence and without undue delay, and found that a delay of some 12 days since Owners’ notification that holds were cleaned was excessive and did not qualify as off-hire. On appeal, the Court agreed that the Tribunal had applied the correct legal test for the implied term (objectively necessary or obvious) but ruled that off-hire did not cease on Owners’ notification but when the reinspection ought to have taken place.

Further to the implementation of sanctions against Russian entities after the invasion of Ukraine, the Defendants in a fraud litigation applied for a stay of the proceedings and release from existing freezing orders against them. The Court dismissed the application by holding that (i) sanctioned claimants can sue for and pay damages; (ii) judgment can lawfully be entered in their favour; (ii) payment of costs to and by them and security for costs to be provided by them are licensable activities.

Further to the buyers’ default payments under 2 sale contracts on c&f “free out” terms, the sellers managed to resell the peas and lentils cargoes to another company and were awarded damages by an arbitration award. The buyers appealed on the measure of damages under clause 25.c of GAFTA24. The first instance judge found no error of law in the tribunal’s decision based on the market price in Vancouver and the market rate of freight for carriage to the discharge port of Mundra. The CA held that the value of the goods fell to be measured by reference to a notional sale of the goods in bulk ex warehouse Mundra on the relevant date of default, but with risk passing to the buyer at the date of contract. The awards were thus remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration.

The Claimant cocoa traders sought to set aside an Award of the Board of Appeal of the Federation of Cocoa Commerce (FCC), on the basis of 'serious irregularity' (s.68) alleging bias of the Tribunal's chairman due to reasons including his participation in and querying of the Claimants' earlier application for FCC membership, his socialising with and previous trading with Defendants. The Court found no breach of any disclosure duty by the chairman and that a fair minded and informed observer would not consider that his limited involvement with the Defendants gave rise to a risk of bias. The Award (ruling that the Claimants' claim was time-barred) was confirmed.

Further to the vessel’s grounding, Cargo Interests claimed damages in respect of their payments to salvors, on-shipment costs and the physical damage to the cargo incurred during re-floating operations. The Carrier relied on Article IV(5)(a) of the Hague Visby Rules to argue that its liability was limited by reference to the weight of the limited quantity of cargo which had suffered physical damage. The Court found that the phrase “goods lost or damaged” in the article includes both physical and economic damage. The limit was thus to be calculated on the basis of the full cargo as the damages and costs incurred had diminished the value of or affected economically the cargo as a whole.