“The Court stated that the Hague-Visby Rules apply not only to contracts of carriage covered by bills of lading but also when waybills are issued instead. The Court also held that Article IV.5(c) of the Hague-Visby Rules does not require enumeration of the cargo inside a container, pallet or similar article of transport "as packed", being sufficient that the number of units or packages is exactly stated in the bill. Here the cargo consisted of unpackaged tuna loins identified as "units" for the purposes of the Rules. “

“An illustration of the principle that a claimant recovering only nominal damages has really 'lost so that the Court will approach costs on the basis that the defendant is really the successful party; in this case the claimant was required to pay a percentage of the defendants' costs plus interest at 2% above base rate, from the time solicitors' fees were paid.”

“The Admiralty Court ruled that a vessel exiting the channel (of a UAE port) bore 80% responsibility for a collision with an entering vessel. The former had failed to navigate on the starboard side of the channel, to keep a proper lookout or develop a safe speed or take avoiding action. The latter, although it failed to keep a proper aural lookout, nevertheless maintained a safe speed and took immediate avoiding action. “

“After discharge operations in Chittagong were interrupted for 6.62 days due to a strike by barge labourers, it was held that laytime continued to run in full during the strike even though Owners did not provide notice of the strike to Charterers as required by the General Strike Clause (Gencon 94), since both Owners and Charterers were fully aware of the strike's existence.”

“Court holds claim is time barred since the cause of action arose more than 6 years from any breach of contract and/or 3 year from knowledge necessary for bringing an action in negligence under s. A4A of the Limitation Act 1980.”

“Sinocore obtained an order from the English Court allowing the enforcement of a foreign, New York Convention arbitral award against the defendant UK company. The defendant challenged the order on the grounds that pursuant to the Arbitration Act, public policy rendered the award unenforceable, as forged bills of lading were involved in the transaction underlying it. The Court dismissed the challenge as the defendant's liability had been ascertained under the lawful sale contract, irrespective of any other tainted transaction (i.e. forged bills).”