“The Court found that an exclusive jurisdiction clause creates "continuing obligations" meaning that claimants were obliged to neither start nor continue proceedings anywhere other than England. Following commencement (in 2008) and continuation of negligence proceedings against them in Germany by their former clients, AMTF brought proceedings in England (in 2007) for damages for breach of the jurisdiction clause. The High Court held that allegations relating to events within 6 years of commencement of the English suit were not bound to fail and dismissed AMTF application for Summary Judgment.”

“A defendant sentenced to imprisonment for contempt of Court for flouting a world-wide freezing order, fled the jurisdiction and remains unfound. The claimant bank then pursued the defendant's son-in-law, domiciled in Switzerland, for damages flowing from a conspiratorial agreement to assist in defeating the freezing order. The Supreme Court confirmed that the necessary 'harmful event', namely the making of the conspiratorial agreement, occurred in England (even if its implementation took place elsewhere), thus giving the English Courts jurisdiction, in this case under the Lugano convention.”

“A dispute arose under a Shelltime 4 charter following a claim by cargo receivers at Aqaba that the cargo was off-spec. Although the Tribunal found that (i) the receivers' claim was neither against Owners nor one in rem (ii) the cargo had been off-spec prior to loading, it held that it was nevertheless Owners' obligation to secure the release of their detained Vessel. In the circumstances however the Tribunal found that the 21 day delay pending provision of security was not unreasonable and the Vessel was not off-hire during this time.”

“This judgment is the first binding precedent on the question whether the berth "always accessible" warranty in a voyage charterparty covers departure from the berth in addition to entry. In this case a vessel was unable to leave berth due to the damage of a nearby bridge and lock, and Owners claimed damages for detention. Contrasting "reachable on arrival", the Commercial Court found that the "always accessible" warranty covers departure, and allowed the appeal against the award of an experienced QC arbitrator.”

“Although the conduct of a judge in meeting one party's Counsel in private and discussing elements of the case was considered "inept", the Court of Appeal found that on the basis of the relevant facts a fair-minded observer would not conclude that the judge's inappropriate conduct could indicate any possibility that he was biased. No submissions were made privately by the Counsel, all the judge's comments were communicated to the other party and the innocuous nature of the conversation gave rise to no inference that the judge would decide the case other than impartially.”

“Following repudiation by charterers (later in liquidation), owners pursued their substantial hire and damages claim against JSG in arbitration, the Tribunal, on a preliminary issue, ruling in favour of its own jurisdiction. The Court on a re-hearing under s67, allowed JSG's challenge to the award, finding that the guarantee had been neither approved nor authorised by them. In so finding the Judge acknowledged owners' disappointment, given the Tribunal's intervening substantive award of USD68 million in owners' favour but commented that this could not distort the central factual issue upon which she had ruled.”