A voyage C/P provided for discharge at 1 / 2 safe ports China, to be nominated within a certain time. Freight varied according to ports and number and was deemed earned on shipment. Charterers timeously nominated 2 ports, the 2nd attracting additional freight. Later, they nominated a different, sole port. Owners complied, under protest and on terms that the additional freight be placed in escrow. Charterers challenged the additional freight, given their replacement nomination. The Tribunal held that the first nominations were treated as if written into the C/P from the outset. Charterers’ arguments that variation, waiver or estoppel applied were all defeated by Owners’ protest and reservation recorded in the escrow. Nor could it be said that Owners were unjustly enriched by not performing the additional freight voyage, as freight had been earned on shipment.

Two crude oil sale contracts provided for pricing to be calculated by reference to particular Platts indices, and in the event of material change to Platts methodology, for a referee to determine a new source. Platts changed their methodology, the parties agreed on a referee, but not his terms of reference. Shell raised a number of issues as to the nature and extent of his task, arguably limiting it. Premier sought declaratory relief from the Court, arguing that the referee’s task was clear from the contracts and he should be allowed to get on with it. Premier succeeded, the Court ruling that it was inappropriate to decide the scope of the referee’s task before his determination, as there were no strong grounds pointing to a likelihood of the expert going wrong.

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.