The Claimant as seller of a quantity of orange pulp ‘wash’ sought payment of the contract price and damages for the Defendant buyer’s refusal to take delivery. However, although the contract referred to a quantity of 3,600mt/1200mt per year over a 3-year period, a contract price was only specified for the first 400mt. The Court found that there was no more than an unenforceable ‘agreement to agree’ as regards the remaining quantity/price and that the buyer was entitled to refuse delivery of, and payment for, the first year’s remaining 800mt. For the same reason, the Claimant seller (having terminated the contract) was not entitled to damages for a repudiatory breach by the buyer.

Sellers of a Cape-size bulk carrier failed to serve timely NOR (not having made reasonable arrangements to disembark crew). Buyers lawfully cancelled. Based on Clause 14 of the NSF 2012  form MOA, providing “due compensation” for loss and expense if the failure is due to “proven negligence”, the Tribunal awarded loss of bargain damages to Buyers. On appeal, the Court ruled that in the absence (as here) of a repudiatory breach, no such damages are recoverable.

By exchange of emails, a 20–24-month charter of the Vessel “Green Ace” was agreed between the Claimant Owners and Charterers “to be guaranteed by [Charterers’ parent, the Defendants, AGML]”. No formal C/P or Guarantee was drawn up. 2 days after delivery, Charterers advised “…unable to accept…. vessel on…current charter terms”, which Owners treated (and the Court confirmed) as repudiatory, seeking damages from AGML.  Rejecting AGML’s contentions, the Court found that the words used were sufficient to create an immediate-effect Guarantee on AGML’s part; the exchange of fixture emails by the parties’ authorised representatives satisfied the “writing” and “signed” requirement of the Statute of Frauds; and any mistake on Charterers’ part as to the Guarantee’s binding nature was not shared by Owners and provided no grounds for recission of the Guarantee.

Following the grounding of “Solomon Trader”, her time-charterers accrued liabilities of some USD47m towards owning interests. Amlin (charterers’ liability insurers), sought to rely on a “pay as may be paid” proviso in the policy to exclude liability to owning interests for liabilities the now-insolvent insured had failed to meet. Upholding the proviso, the Court ruled that, despite its subsidiary nature, it was not inconsistent with the policy’s main purpose, was not transformative of the insurance contract and was no different in essence from equivalent provisos in P&I and Hull policies.

The Claimant provided a financial facility of USD45m to D1 to support its ship-recycling business, secured by a personal guarantee of D2, who, during negotiations leading to the facility, presented a “Statement of Net Worth” of USD46m. D3 (CFO of D1) issued the required “Approved Borrower Statement”, asserting transactional compliance.  Repayments were not made and D2 provided a misleading “Statement of Delays”. The Court found all 3 Statements false and fraudulent, meant to deceive the Claimant, who relied on them. D2 and D3 were held liable for the torts of deceit and accessory liability respectively and Defendants collectively for unlawful means conspiracy, with damages to be assessed.

Sovcombank sought damages in the Russian courts after UK Sanctions prevented Barclays making payments under a financial facility. Supporting the facility's English exclusive jurisdiction clause, the Court granted Barclays not only an anti- suit injunction against Sovcombank but also a rare anti-enforcement injunction to further guard against a Russian judgment.