A T/C clause provided for underwater cleaning (necessitated by Charterers’ trading) to be done “at first workable opportunity and always at Charterers’ time and expense”. The Court on a s.69 appeal upheld the Tribunal’s ruling that post-redelivery cleaning time was reimbursable, and at the T/C rate (without Owners having to prove loss of time and damages suffered).

Rhine as Disponent Owners voyage chartered a vessel to Vitol. Third parties arrested Rhine’s bunkers and property on board at the first load port. In the ensuing delay, claimed Vitol, the price payable by them for the second load port cargo increased, causing them loss of some USD3.7m, for which they sought damages. The Court found Rhine in breach of the CP warranty: “…Vessel, Owners….disponent owners are free of any encumbrances….that may affect performance…”; and that the “Third Party Arrest” clause: “…in the event of arrest…levied against the vessel….Owner shall indemnify Charterer for any damages…” was activated. In awarding Vitol the damages sought, the Court ruled that price fluctuation was within the contemplation of the parties and that in any event the rules of remoteness did not apply to the indemnity.

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.