The M.T. “Polar” laden with cargo pursuant to a voyage charter, was seized by pirates in the Gulf of Aden until a ransom was paid on behalf of Owners. The C/P, which was incorporated into the B/Ls, contained a “Gulf of Aden” clause making charterers liable for additional war risk premiums (‘awrp’). Resisting Owners’ claim for GA contribution, the defendant Cargo Interests argued that the effect of the “Gulf of Aden” Clause on the B/L was that Owners could look only to their insurers and not Cargo Interests for recovery of the ransom. The CA upheld the High Court, ruling that although the clause was incorporated into the B/Ls for other purposes, it did not make Cargo Interests liable for awrp and could not therefore have the effect of contended for, so as to excuse them from GA contribution.

Owners claimed that Charterers’ failure to discharge within laytime, gave rise not only to demurrage but also a cargo deterioration claim against Owners by Receivers. The CA, reversing Baker J’s decision, held that demurrage was Owners’ sole remedy – it “liquidates the whole of the damages arising from… failing to complete cargo operations within the laytime”. Breach of a separate obligation was required to claim additional damages for delay and as Owners failed to plead it, recovery of such damages was precluded.

. The CA dismissed the appeal of a serial contemnor – with an unsatisfied judgment debt of more than USD70m – against a two-year custodial sentence. The appellant claimed that the judge had adopted a starting point in excess of the statutory maximum by commenting that his behaviour "merited longer than 24 months". The CA held that there was no absolute rule requiring credit for the Appellant’s admissions of contempt, and the judge was entitled to find them “meaningless” and “lip service” only. Further, the prohibition on the Appellant from leaving the jurisdiction did not amount to mitigation, but rather compliance with an earlier injunction.

A Shipbuilding contract guarantee in respect of the (USD170m) final instalment for a USD200m drillship, given “absolutely and unconditionally” and “not merely as…surety” provided for payment “upon receipt…of…first written demand….” by the Builder. But in the event of a dispute over Buyer’s liability to pay, submitted to arbitration, the Guarantor was entitled to withhold payment pending the award. The CA, overturning the High Court judgment, ruled that this was a ‘demand’ guarantee (without reference to Buyer’s underlying liability) not merely a ‘see to it’ one and that the proviso operated only where the underlying liability arbitration had been commenced prior to the guarantee demand.

The CA ruled that a fuel oil sale Recap term making the quality inspection certificate binding on both parties, could not “fairly and sensibly be read together” with an incorporated BP term making the certificate binding “for invoicing purposes”. Buyers were therefore precluded from pursuing their quality claim on the following grounds: i) the BP term effectively deprived the Recap term of all effect, ii) a regime in which a quality certificate is binding is significantly different from one in which it is not, iii) it was unlikely the parties would wish to detract from this central feature of quality determination, and iv) while possible to agree a non-binding analysis, on a commercially reasonable interpretation this was not what the parties had agreed.

“Responding to claims totalling some GBP16.Sm under personal guarantees, the Defendants had counterclaimed for conspiracy to raid and seize their assets, contrary to Russian law. Some 22 months after the trial which spanned 6 months, the High Court allowed the claim and dismissed the counterclaim for lack of proof. The CA held that the Judge's requirement that the Defendants establish "the facts to be incapable of innocent explanation" set the bar too high, rendering the judgment unsafe and that a retrial should take place. The delayed judgment, although inexcusably in excess of the unwritten 3 month rule, did not alone render it unsafe.”