Disputes arose under 2 bareboat charters over Owners’ Termination Notices (following shareholding changes in sub-charterers). After starting arbitration, Owners sought injunctive relief from the Court under s.44(3) of the Arbitration Act (orders to preserve evidence or assets in urgent cases) requiring the immediate redelivery of the Vessels, as during the proceedings the Vessels would be exposed to risks and loss of Owners’ opportunity. The Court declined the injunction because Owners failed to prove urgency and further, the injunction, in bringing about redelivery, would thwart the arbitrators’ role in deciding validity of the Notices.

The Claimant sought an ant-suit injunction restraining Russian proceedings in favour of ICC arbitration in Paris, as specified in an arbitration clause in a bond expressed to be governed by English law. The Court declined the injunction, ruling that it had no such jurisdiction, given that the arbitration was to be in France (where substantial justice could be done).

Those interested in a cargo of cocoa beans claimed against the carrier in respect of damage. The Court found that the condensation damage was caused by post-discharge lack of container ventilation pending de-vanning. The contractual claim (by the B/L holder/ endorsee) failed as the B/L provided that carrier’s liability ended upon tendering the goods for delivery (here discharge) and incorporated the Hague Rules to the same effect.  The negligence claim by the alleged goods owner failed as there was neither evidence as to cargo ownership at the material time, nor basis for carrier liability outside the terms of the B/L.

Following an unpaid Judgment for damages for wrongful arrest of the vessel ‘Captain Silver’, the Claimants took enforcement steps, including an Asset Disclosure Order (ADO), which was disobeyed, resulting in a Contempt of Court ruling, a £100,000 fine on AGR (unpaid) and a 12-month Committal Order on its general manager, Mr AG. The latter applied to discharge the Committal Order on the grounds that whilst he was willing to comply with the ADO, he had no authority to do so because his co-signatories withheld consent. The Court declined: the Committal Order could not be discharged whilst the underlying Contempt remained and there were insufficient grounds to ‘purge’ the Contempt. Mr AG had failed to take adequate steps to obtain co-signatories’ support, and he could have at least partially complied with the ADO. Should he do so in future purging might be possible.

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.