Cargo was delivered without B/Ls, against LOIs from Voyage Charterers Aeturnum and Time Charterers Navig8. ING bank, claiming to be holders, arrested the Vessel and sought damages of USD8.5m from head owners. Aeturnum failed to take steps and Navig8 placed security to release the Vessel. The Court held that cargo was delivered in accordance with Aeturnum’s instructions, engaging their LOI to Navig8, which was breached (alleged impecuniosity being neither made out nor an excuse). It ordered specific performance (requiring Navig8’s security to be replaced) and damages for Navig8’s loss of use during arrest, Navig8’s further losses being stood over pending ING’s judgment in Singapore.

When their cargo of copper was replaced by cobblestones, Mercuria commenced proceedings in Turkey against carrier Maersk, who, 5 weeks later, sought an anti-suit injunction (‘ASI’) to enforce the B/Ls’ exclusive English jurisdiction clause. Mercuria argued that Maersk had deliberately delayed until the expiry of the B/Ls’ time bar - so an ASI would cause prejudice as English proceedings would be fatally flawed. The Court nevertheless granted the ASI: the time bar was usual, nothing had prevented Mercuria commencing English protective proceedings or required Maersk to seek the ASI any earlier.

An arbitration agreement provided that the parties were to first seek settlement by mediation. The claimants simultaneously commenced arbitration and sought a stay pending mediation. The respondents failed to engage, later arguing that the claimants’ failure first to mediate deprived the tribunal of jurisdiction to determine the (now time-barred) claim. The Court, dismissing the respondents’ s.67 challenge to the tribunal’s jurisdiction award, found the arbitration was validly commenced, with the mediation requirement being merely a procedural condition..

Owners’ USD500,000 demurrage claim under a cp in Shellvoy 6 form was time barred pursuant to Clause 15(3) providing for notification “within [here 30] days after completion of discharge”. Discharge had completed late Christmas Eve local time (PST) in California, already Christmas Day in Europe (CET or GMT). Owners’ notice had been served within 30 days only of the latter, which Owners argued was the most closely connected time zone, being that of sender (Owners, Belgium), recipient (Charterers, Spain) or the law of the CP (England). The Court disagreed, finding that the relevant event was completion of discharge, the time of which is determined according to the discharge place time zone.

In an ownership dispute, VTB (against the usual Undertaking) had obtained an injunction against a refinery in Russia for delivery of a cargo. Petraco, claiming title, challenged the injunction, following which the cargo was sold and proceeds paid into Court, which ordered an expedited trial as to ownership/ rights. In that action, Petraco applied to enforce VTB’s Undertaking in damages and VTB sought to join third parties related to the refinery, pursuant to CPR Pt. 20. The Court ruled that VTB remained in the position of claimant and the Court had no jurisdiction to order the joining of third parties under Pt.20. VTB would have to pursue those claims in Russia.

“In a cargo misdelivery claim, the unpaid claimant bank holding B/Ls as security, defeated the carrier's argument that the bills had become 'spent' by the time the bank acquired possession. Neither the charterer/seller ordering discharge nor the buyer/receiver of the cargo was entitled to delivery under the bills. Such a delivery was not therefore capable of causing bills to be spent ('Erin Schulte' case considered). Nor did the bank's grant of the loan, with knowledge of the delivery without bills, constitute its authorisation or consent to the carrier.”