“The rare concurrence of two individually not uncommon events (strong northerly gale and long waves) was an "abnormal occurrence" such that charterers were not in breach of the C/P safe port warranty (even if each event separately may have been characteristic of the port). Further, and in any event, the C/P joint insurance clause excluded rights of recourse between the parties, each of whom had agreed to look to insurers for indemnification rather than to each other in the event of total loss. “

“In breach of a London arbitration clause, charterers commenced substantive proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction in addition to arresting the vessel as security for their claim. The English Court had granted the owners (ex-parte) an anti-suit injunction, in accordance with normal principles. However, the Court later declined to grant further injunctive relief or order discontinuance of the foreign proceedings (including the 'tainted' arrest) in circumstances where charterers had in the meantime applied to the foreign court for a stay of the substantive proceedings. In other words, charterers had cured the historic breach by the time of the present hearing so no further injunctive relief was appropriate.”

“A party relying on a “pay when paid” provision to withhold payment to its sub-contractor had the burden of proof. The main contractor in a project for the construction of LNG gas plants, was held liable to pay its sub-contractor (who had provided tug, barge and other services to the value of USD28m) as it had failed to show that it had not been paid by the employer, or used all available means to obtain payment.”

“After the outbreak of norovirus on-board, the Claimant cruise line agents sought an indemnity from Charterers' Liability insurers for payments to passengers following curtailment of the voyage. The Court found that the Claimant was not a contracting carrier under the Athens Convention and instead passengers' claims lay against the Tour Operators with whom they had a contractual relationship. The Claimant, therefore, had incurred "no losses costs or expenses as Charterer", money having been refunded to passengers for commercial and reputational reasons only. “

“A Tribunal constituted pursuant to a 'Law and Arbitration' C/P provision ruled against Charterers' challenge to its jurisdiction, holding that a competing clause referring to Egyptian Courts and law was less comprehensive than the arbitration provision. It was also considered that Charterers waived the right to challenge arbitration by participating in the proceedings. “

“The arbitration clause contained in a licence agreement between ABP and Tata was held to be valid according to s. 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The agreement provided for renegotiation in case of "major... change in circumstances" and arbitration in case parties failed to agree on new terms. The Court held that the arbitration clause was sufficiently certain to be binding.”