The Vessel “Win Win” intending to anchor at EOPL Singapore in February 2019, was within Indonesian territorial waters and was arrested by their Navy (shortly after an anchoring rule change). The Vessel was detained for 18 months and the Master imprisoned. The Defendant war risk insurers contested liability under the Policy, arguing that (i) insured Owners knew/ should have known of the risk, thus the loss was voluntary (ii) the arrest was akin to a customs/ quarantine one and excluded by the Policy (iii) Owners failed in their ‘sue and labour’ duty, including engaging in futile negotiations with Indonesia, thus causing the loss. Each argument failed as did the Defendants’ attempt to avoid the policy for non-disclosure of (unrelated) Greek criminal charges against Owners’ director, held to have had no relevance or bearing on acceptance of the risk.

In relation to issues over whether certain payments had been made, the Claimants sought an order that a collection of some 6,000 of the Defendants’ documents, already manually searched, should now be subjected to “TAR” (technology-assisted review) to ascertain further discloseability. The Judge ruled that, bearing in mind limitations to the TAR system, an order was not justified in relation to documents already subjected to a disclosure exercise, adding that the situation might be different had a new source of documentation been identified.

In the context of an arbitration relating a claim under a film-production policy, the insurer applied to Court for the removal of the sole arbitrator on the ground of apparent bias due to his knowledge of and attitude towards the insured's factual and expert witnesses and some remarks that he did not intend hear the insured’s expert witnesses because he knew them “all personally extremely well” as "exceptional people in their fields". The judge found no actual or apparent bias based purely on his past industry relationship with the witnesses. Nevertheless, the arbitrator was removed because the suggestion that it was unnecessary to cross-examine the insured’s expert witnesses was plainly not an expression of a balanced and impartial view as it gave rise to an apprehension that he had pre-determined favourable views, thereby pre-judging the merits of the dispute.

The parties conducted negotiations for a 4 year T/C, culminating in a Recap, containing ‘subs’ and references to further terms to be agreed; further terms were advanced by Trafigura, commented on by Owners (“Owners’ last”) and countered by Trafigura. Following Owners’ silence and Trafigura’s chasers, the latter purported to accept “Owners’ last” and advised that they lifted all ‘subs’ and were fully fixed. Granting summary judgment to Owners, the Court held: the ‘subs’ and further terms TBA precluded the Recap being a concluded contract; “Owners’ last” was not capable of acceptance (and had been rejected) and Trafigura’s subsequent conduct was of no contractual effect. There was no concluded C/P.

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.