“Vessel owners Songa, delivered a cargo of edible oil, without production of bills of lading, against (International Group wording) LOIs from its time-charterers, Navig8, requiring delivery to Aavanti or such party as was believed to be or to represent Aavanti. Following delivery to Ruchi supposedly on behalf of Aavanti, Societe Generale claimed to be the unpaid lawful holder of the bills of lading and commenced arbitration misdelivery proceedings against Songa. Pending the outcome, the Commercial Court granted each of Songa and Navig8 immediate and final summary judgment ruling that delivery to Ruchi triggered the respective LOIs, requiring each beneficiary to be indemnified in respect of liability to, or reasonable settlement with Societe Generale.”

“The Court of Appeal confirmed that the word "unit" in Article IV Rule 5 of the Hague Rules means a physical item and not a unit of measurement. Therefore, the Hague Rules limitation of liability cannot apply to bulk cargoes (in this case a fish oil cargo) and the carrier could not limit its liability to the (uncontested) amount of £100 per ton. Nor was the carrier assisted by a charterparty term conferring on it "the like privileges and rights and immunities" as Article IV. Without more, this only conferred the same rights as the carrier would have had under Article IV and no more.”

“Following an engine room fire in August 2012, it was not until February 2013 that ship-owners sought to abandon their vessel to Underwriters and claim a CTL. The Court of Appeal confirmed the High Court ruling that despite the delay, the owners had not lost the right to abandon or declare a CTL. Widely divergent repair estimates had been in play and it was legitimate to include in the repair figures costs incurred between incident and Notice of Abandonment and SCOPIC remuneration.”

“A time charter clause provided for charterers to reimburse a capped amount for extra insurances incurred by owners "for transit from Yanbu to India"; owners contended that the part of the premium attributable to calls in both places fell outside the cap and was payable on top. The Tribunal held that "transit" here included both port calls and the time in motion in between and so the corresponding premium fell within the cap.”

“A charter on an amended ExxonMobilVOY2005 form contained additional 'LITASCO' clauses providing (cl. 4) for time waiting for orders to count as laytime or demurrage as well as (c1.2) a documentary time bar, discharging charterers from demurrage claims unless presented and supported within 90 days.
Owners failed properly to support their demurrage claim in time but argued that the waiting time claim fell outside the time bar. The Commercial Court held that a cl. 4 claim is a demurrage claim and subject to the time bar.”

“Under a trip time charter, charterers claimed that the vessel was delayed by slow operation of the vessel's cranes although the gear was found in good condition. The technical data were not set out in the charter and the Tribunal, dismissing the claim, found that there was no warranty as to crane speed, nor any breakdowns or breach of maintenance obligations. The Tribunal found also that charterers failed to establish any warranty as to the vessel's speed and consumption at eco speed: owners had merely warranted receipt of builders' information. For that reason, the Tribunal had also declined to order disclosure of previous fixture eco-performance.”