The Claimants sold 50,000mt soybeans on CIF terms, carried pursuant to a B/L on the Defendants’ Vessel. The receivers rejected a quantity (comprising sound and allegedly damaged cargo) and later effected a salvage sale of the damaged cargo. The Claimants sought damages being the difference between the CIF price of the rejected quantity and that achieved on the salvage sale, plus inspection, survey, and cargo handling expenses. The Defendants admitted liability but contended that a much lesser quantity than alleged was affected, and that the Claimants failed properly to segregate and to obtain sufficient bids on the salvage sale. The Court, whilst accepting the Defendants’ evidence on damage extent, rejected the arguments on mitigation, emphasising the high evidential burden of showing unreasonable conduct by a claimant. It also allowed the CIF price as the comparator but disallowed the additional expenses.

Charterers under an Exxonvoy ordered the Vessel to wait at Singapore EOPL. The Master anchored in Indonesian waters, where the Vessel was arrested by the Navy along with the Master and detained for 8 months. The Tribunal rejected both Owners’ and Charterers’ claims, based respectively on ‘safety’ and breach of Exxonvoy Cl.2 (‘Compliance’). Charterers appealed the latter but in view of the Tribunal’s finding that error in navigation caused the Master to anchor where he did, the Court upheld their ruling that Owners were entitled to rely on Art. IV rule 2(a) of the Hague Rules.  Even if such defence was an ‘anachronism’ (as Charterers argued) the parties had nonetheless agreed to its application by US COGSA.

The Court granted Summary Judgment to Litasco (unpaid Sellers of crude oil to the Defendants) in a Є45m claim, pursuant to a debt re-scheduling Agreement. The Court dismissed the Defendant’s various arguments including those under the UK 2019 Russia Sanctions Regulations, and illegality. The Regulations did not apply to the transaction (involving Swiss/Senegalese entities and West African countries) or to any of the ‘persons’ involved (neither Swiss Litasco, nor its Russian parent, Lukoil, was Sanctioned, nor was any individual with a controlling stake; the Defendants failed to prove that President Putin had de facto control of the Claimants; paying the scheduled debt would not make funds available to a Russian person in connection with the export of energy-related goods.

The Claimant carrier issued 7 ‘Congenbill 1994’ B/Ls in 2021. GA was declared on the voyage and the Defendant cargo insurers issued Average Guarantees. The carrier sought a declaratory judgment that the B/Ls provision that GA “….shall be adjusted….according to the York-Antwerp Rules 1994 or any subsequent modification thereof…” applied the 1994 YAR to the exclusion of the 2004 and 2016 versions, as these were each more than “modification”. The Court ruled that both were properly considered “modifications” and that here the 2016 YAR applied.

The claimant former shareholders of Yukos obtained – and sought to enforce – Arbitration Awards determining that the Tribunal had jurisdiction and that RF was in breach and liable to pay them some USD50bn in damages. RF challenged both the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the English Court’s jurisdiction to enforce on the basis of state immunity. In fact, RF alleged that the claimants could not invoke the provision containing RF’s agreement to arbitration as they did not fit in the definition of "investors" as required. The same challenges were brought before Dutch Courts but they were rejected. The Commercial Court held that the Dutch judgments created issue-estoppel precluding RF from re-opening jurisdiction: RF’s challenges already had a determination and it could not seek another one before a different court.

Disputes arose under a substantial gas supply contract between the claimant State and the defendant BVI corporation. Following ICC arbitration in London, the defendant was awarded USD6.6bn in damages. Nigeria’s appeal under s.68(2)(g) of the Arbitration Act (serious irregularity – award obtained by fraud or in a manner contrary to public policy) succeeded.  The Court found that the defendant had provided false evidence to the Tribunal, bribed a Nigerian official to conceal significant facts and had improperly obtained Nigeria’s privileged documents. But for this conduct the Tribunal would have reached a different conclusion.