“Pursuant to a settlement agreement, H&M underwriters paid sums to its insured's Netherlands-based Bank, following the loss of the Vessel `Atlantik Confidence'. The insurers have now sought to recover those sums on the basis that the Vessel had been deliberately cast away. The Court found that the exclusive (English) jurisdiction clauses in the policy and in the settlement agreement did not bind the Bank. However, in so far as underwriters' claim was based on a tort (namely the insured's misrepresentation on its own and the Bank's behalf as to the cause of the loss) that tort was committed in England, giving the Court jurisdiction over the Bank.”

“The Tribunal ruled that disponent owners could only recover from time charterers 50% of a cargo claim reimbursement and costs liability paid to head owners. The cargo claim (condensation damage to steels) arose not just through loading and stowing but also due to other reasons including the multiplicity of loading ports and the differing temperatures and conditions at those ports. The claim therefore fell under ICA paragraph 8(d) ("all other..."). The Tribunal declined to hold that it arose through charterers' act or neglect (so as to apply a 100% apportionment) particularly because the time charter specified the type of cargo, the range of ports and the time of year.”

“A prime diamond trader terminated the agency contract with its long-standing 'London Sights' broker on the grounds that the latter's role had become redundant. The Court found the principal in breach of the fixed-term agreement and awarded the agent compensation being (a) earnings during a reasonable notice period and (b) loss of net future income stream from commissions. Diamonds are not forever, as the learned Judge observed.”

“Beta indicated an inability to provide biofuel to Vitol under a FOB contract; Vitol then simply failed to nominate a vessel in time, later sending a notice of contractual termination. Vitol contended that its failure to nominate was tantamount to acceptance of Beta's renunciatory breach, entitling it to claim damages. Beta argued that its obligation to deliver was conditional upon timely nomination. The Court concluded that Vitol's conduct was not sufficiently clear and unequivocal as to constitute acceptance of a renunciatory breach. However, in the circumstances the obligation to nominate was "stripped of its purpose and otiose" and could not amount to a pre-condition. Therefore, Beta was not relieved of its obligations and Vitol was entitled to damages.”

“Pursuant to voyage charterers' orders, owners interrupted loading operations and later claimed additional load port expenses. The Tribunal rejected owners' arguments that i) charterers' instruction were uncontractual because charterers were exercising their right to use the allowed laytime as they wished and ii) owners were entitled to be indemnified for expenses incurred for following charterers' orders because it was a voyage charter so expenses lie where they fall. Nevertheless, the Tribunal awarded owners reimbursement of additional load port expenses on the basis of an inferred oral agreement between the parties.”

“After charterers' repudiation of a time charter of a cruise ship, owners later sold the vessel to a third party for more than US$23m. The Arbitrator found that the sale was made in mitigation of losses as the ship was valued at some US$7m at the time the vessel should have been redelivered. Therefore, he disallowed owners' damages. The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court ruling that owners' benefit was not legally caused by the breach of the charterparty. The breach could have been the occasion but not the legal cause for the sale, which remains a commercial decision made at the owners' own risk and the exercise of owners' proprietary right which they enjoy independent of the charterparty.”