Owners of CMA CGM Libra, grounded after straying from a buoyed fairway, appealed a ruling that their (causative) failure to update charts to show “numerous depths less than charted” rendered the vessel unseaworthy (Art. III r.1 Hague Rules). Dismissing the appeal, the SC held that seaworthiness was not confined to physical defects, nor were seaworthiness and navigational matters distinct categories. Negligent navigation, here by not updating charts, caused the unseaworthiness, to which Art IV r.2 was no defence, and Owners were under a non-delegable duty to make the vessel seaworthy.

“Subcharterers Gujarat India failed to pay US$ 3.2M freight to Disponent Owners PCL, time charterers of the Vessel Illawarra Fortune. After taking assignment of Owners' rights under the b/Is, PCL tried to recover those sums from Shippers WCL. The bills provided for "freight payable as per Charter Party", i.e. the voyage charter. However, following Wa's failure to pay part of freight costs, the b/Is were marked "Null and Void" and substituted by switch bills identifying New Alloys as shippers. The Court held that because of the novation WCL's liability under the b/Is was extinguished therefore neither Owners nor PCL as their assignee could recover the freight and costs related to the voyage.”

“The Supreme Court confirmed that costs incurred both before and after notice of abandonment may be taken into account in ascertaining whether a vessel is a CTL pursuant to s.60(2)(ii) of the Marine Insurance Act 1996; SCOPIC charges however are not to be taken into account as, by contrast, they are 'unconnected with the damage to the hull or its hypothetical reinstatement.'“

“The Supreme Court has overruled the Court of Appeal and held that defending a cargo claim under the Hague Rules, a carrier must prove (i) that the loss was not caused by a breach of the Article III cargo care duties and (ii) not just that the matter falls within one of the Article IV r2 exceptions but that there was no causative negligence on his part.”

“The Supreme Court dismissed Playboy Club's appeal in a case about a negligent credit reference for GBP1.6m supplied by BNL for its customer. As was the Club's practice, in order to conceal the gambling purpose, the reference was to be supplied directly to the Club's associated company, Burlington. Relying on the reference, the Club offered a substantial cash facility to its member, who subsequently defaulted. The Club (being the party who had suffered the loss) proceeded against BNL in tort, on the basis of a breach of duty of care. The Supreme Court upheld BNL's defence, ruling that it owed no duty of care to an undisclosed principal who was neither identified nor identifiable.”

“The Supreme Court held that the No Oral Modification (NOM) provision in a contract for occupation of office premises deprived a subsequent alleged oral agreement of any binding force as a contract variation. Parties who orally agree to the terms of a variation of the substance of their contractual relationship do not thereby impliedly agree to dispense with the NOM clause.”