“Unsuccessful shareholder respondents to an LCIA arbitration commenced Court proceedings under s68 of the Arbitration Act alleging "serious irregularity" on the basis of bias, non-disclosure and other defects. The arbitration claimants sought security for their costs of defending the challenge and shortly afterwards the shareholders discontinued their s68 challenges. Given the weakness of the allegations, and the fact that security would have been awarded had the application continued, the Court ordered that the shareholders bear the claimants' costs of both the challenge and the security application on an indemnity basis.”

“Charterers accepted that, in breach of an amended NYPE charter, they had loaded a prohibited cargo. However, Owners' claim for damages, namely the cost of extra time spent hold cleaning after redelivery of the vessel, failed. The Tribunal accepted Charterers' case that Owners were unable to formulate, particularise or prove any additional costs beyond the 'ILOHC' lumpsum provided in the charter. In particular there was no evidence as to the nature of the cleaning, nor any costs or losses associated with any missed follow-on fixture.”

“Further to an abortive sale, the Sheriff sold the arrested vessel pursuant to clause 16 (b) of the Conditions of Sale "If the Buyer fails ... to make any one of the payments... the Sheriff... may... forfeit all payments made by the Buyer...". Although the sale contract was made between the Sheriff and the Buyer, the Court found that the forfeited sums in the earlier abortive sale should be treated as part of the proceeds of the judicial sale of the vessel. They could not be retained by the Sheriff for public benefit as the Sheriff did not contract on behalf of the State but for the benefit of the parties interested in the arrested vessel and the title to the vessel rested with the shipowner.”

“Insured shipowners' claim under a marine policy of kidnap and ransom was paid by insurers pursuant to a settlement agreement. Insurers then sought damages against their insured's director, domiciled in Greece, for procuring a breach of the settlement agreement (by depriving them of a subrogated claim for cargo's GA contribution and failing to account for such GA contributions as were received). The director was held to have submitted to the English Court's jurisdiction by failing to raise a challenge in time. The Court found that it would have had jurisdiction in any event (under Art. 7(2) of the Recast Brussels Regulation) in relation to the accounting under the settlement agreement, as this was to occur in England; however, (but for the submission) it would not have had jurisdiction over the unrecoverable GA, as that loss was sustained in Oman, where the voyage was abandoned after the release of the vessel by pirates.”

“Under an MOA on the 2012 saleform with addenda, following NOR, Sellers were to provide (i) their own confirmation of non-encumbrance and (ii) a confirmation from the Vessel's registry. In the absence of (ii), Buyers failed to pay the purchase price and Sellers cancelled the MOA. The Tribunal dismissed Buyers' claim for return of the deposit and damages, finding that on a true construction of the addenda, (ii) need not be provided before the payment obligation was triggered. Sellers' cancellation was valid, entitling them to retain the deposit.”