An “Uplift Term” was agreed in c/p (NYPE) under which Owners would supply an additional 200-300 mt delivery bunkers, against increased hire. Owners subsequently supplied 195 mt. Charterers sought a declaration that the minimum quantity had not been supplied and the “Uplift Term” not triggered, whilst Owners argued the “Additional Requirements” clause (defining “abt” as +/- 5%) was applicable. The Tribunal agreed with Owners; the parties intended “abt” to qualify all bunker quantities, its omission a clear mistake the Tribunal had power to correct, and its inclusion necessary for business efficacy.

Further to an electrical breakdown, Time-Charterers first placed the Vessel off-hire, and then terminated the Charterparty (with cargo on board), relying on the C/P cancellation clause and a repudiatory breach. Whilst the breakdown inferred breach of delivery condition, the Tribunal held it was not repudiatory; nor had Charterers complied with cancellation clause notice requirements. Until the Vessel proceeded to the discharge port and delivered the cargo, she was not at Owners’ disposal and not redelivered; the C/P remained live but the vessel was, however, off-hire from the moment she could not follow Charterers’ orders until commencement of discharge.

Multiple cargo Claimants, claiming cargo damage and short delivery under 14 B/Ls, alleged the cargo had been sold prior discharge to two of their number, who, as B/L holders had obtained title to sue pursuant to s.2(2)(a) of COGSA 1992. Shipowners put the Claimants to strict proof, from the outset, to evidence all endorsements and B/Ls movements, and that the cargo had not been sold onwards. The Tribunal placed little weight on witness evidence from the alleged cargo seller, nor on letters from the two Claimants confirming receipt of B/Ls and no onwards sale (produced some 4 years later). Contemporaneous material from the Claimants themselves was crucial – and absent. The Claimants had not established title to sue and their claim was dismissed.