“In connection with a contested constructive total loss claim under a war risks policy on the vessel "Brillante Virtuoso", the defendant underwriters — who allege that the vessel was "scuttled" by her Owner — applied for an order to reveal the hitherto protected identity of a key witness in the action. Despite the order being opposed by City of London Police, the Court granted the application because the true identity was already known to those who could pose a threat to the witness, therefore the anonymity was not necessary to avoid harm to him or his relatives.”

“Under a voyage charter on an amended Shellvoy 5 form, charterers exercised their right to cancel but also claimed damages following from a breach of the obligation to commence the approach voyage in time. Although the c/p contained neither ETA nor expected readiness to load provision, the CA, confirming the Court below, found that the c/p references to the previous fixture itinerary equally imposed upon owners an obligation to begin the approach voyage "forthwith" or "within a reasonable time".”

“Tepe obtained arbitration awards against (Turkish-State owned) Bota§ for amounts over USD100m in respect of work on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. By way of enforcement, Tepe obtained interim orders from the Jersey Courts over shares held by Bota§ in two Jersey subsidiaries. The Privy Council heard Bota§' appeal on the grounds of State Immunity and concluded that the shares were neither "property" of the Turkish State nor sufficiently controlled by the State as to qualify for immunity under the relevant statutes.”

“For the carriage of soya beans pursuant to an NYPE T/C, the Master insisted on a stowage plan involving strapping cargo in a slack hold. The issue was the cost and time of that operation, amounting to some USD410,000. Arbitrators found that the Master's requirement was unfounded, unnecessary and a breach of CI.8 but ruled that Art.IV r.2(a) of incorporated US COGSA excused Owners. The Court dismissed Charterers' appeal against that ruling, agreeing with the Tribunal that what motivated the Master was stability of the Vessel, thus his insistence was management of the Vessel and not the cargo.”

“The JHC/JCC standard sanction clause in a London market cargo policy did not entitle insurers to withhold payment of the insured's claim which arose when two cargoes carried to Iran in August 2012, were shortly thereafter stolen from bonded store. The clause requirement that payment "would expose that insurer to any sanction...under [UN, EU, UK or US resolution/regulation]" had not been met. At the time of the carriage and theft no relevant sanctions were in place and although at various times since then sanctions would have applied and indeed in the case of the US would soon re-apply (as of 5th November), the Court found that up until 1159 on 4 November, payment would not be prohibited under one of the named systems and therefore could not "expose" insurers to sanctions.”

“A vessel leaving port crossed and collided in the channel with an inbound vlcc awaiting the pilot. Both were to blame for observation failures. Whereas the crossing regulations would produce a different result, the CA, confirming the Court below, held that they did not apply. Instead the exiting vessel was subject to the narrow channel rule and at fault. Further, her excessive speed was significant to both culpability and apportionment.”