The CA upheld the first instance judgment that the claims against the carrier for misdelivery were time-barred by Art. III r.6 of the Hague Visby Rules as they were brought more than one year after cargo discharge. The CA found that both the language and purpose of the rule and the travaux préparatoires of the convention make it clear that it applies even when misdelivery occurs after completion of discharge. Nor did the CA accept that Congenbill clause 2(c) disapplied the rule: if the carrier remains liable after discharge, there would be no reason to exclude the time-bar defence.

The Claimant claimed an unpaid amount under a share purchase agreement, against the purchaser (D1, a Cypriot company) and guarantor (D2, a BVI company). The Defendants counterclaimed that they were entitled to set-off the equivalent amount. In ordering that the Defendants secure the Claimants’ costs of defending the counterclaim (by way of a first-Class London bank guarantee), the Court found there was reason to believe (and not just suspect) that D1 would be unable to pay those costs. Nor was it willing to accept that an undertaking by D2 to pay D1’s costs was sufficient: despite contentions that D2 and its subsidiaries had net assets over USD67m and cash over USD10m, the evidence was unconvincing and D2 was a BVI corporation, not obliged to file audited accounts.

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.