“The High Court held that the Classification clause (9) in a BARECON '89 Charterparty is both an absolute obligation and a condition, such that if charterers allow Class to lapse, owners are entitled to terminate. In so doing it overturned an arbitration award concluding that clause (9) was part of the continuing maintenance obligation and imposed only an intermediate obligation of reasonable diligence, i.e. to reinstate the vessel's Class within a reasonable time.”

“Last year the Court of Appeal ruled that responsibility for the collision between Alexandra I (container ship) and Eversmart (tanker) was to be apportioned 80:20. The claims totalled some USD36m. The Admiralty Court recently assessed recoverable damages at USD9.3m for Alexandra I and USD2.53 for Eversmart. The Court declined to award extended loss to Alexandra I on the basis of "impecuniosity" of her Owners (said to cause delay to repairs, causing loss of market and eventual judicial sale). The owners had failed on the facts to establish the necessary causation between collision and delay/market collapse.”

“HSBC advanced USD3Om for the acquisition of 2 vessels. A subsequent fall in the freight market resulted in the owning entities being in breach of the financing arrangements. The Bank sought to enforce its claim under the personal guarantees (which were subject to English jurisdiction but Greek law). The guarantor argued that the Bank's conduct had been contrary to a principle of "good faith" enshrined in Greek law. The High Court found that the allegations against the Bank — including a) failing to compromise with borrowers b) taking time to negotiate debt restructuring, c) refusing a 'haircut' to the debtor and d) preferring one customer to another — were not made out and that the Bank's claim succeeded in full.”

“The incorporation of the ICA in a time charterparty meant that both parties agreed to the definition of "cargo claims" as "claims for loss, damage, shortage...overcarriage of or delay to cargo". A tribunal considered that there was no reason to give a different meaning to those words elsewhere in the charterparty, including an addendum clause rendering Charterers fully liable for all "cargo claims". Unsuccessfully, Charterers argued that a claim for diminution in value of the cargo due to the vessel's delay fell outside the meaning of the addendum clause.”

“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.”