“A bill of lading provided that cargo was "loaded on deck at shipper's and/or consignee's and/or receiver's risk; the carrier and/or Owners and/or Vessel being not responsible for loss or damage howsoever arising...". The Court considered that it was difficult to conceive of wider words of exemption and held that the provision was effective to exclude Owners' liability for loss or damage to deck cargo even if caused by unseaworthiness or their negligence.”

“A Time charter clause provided that Charterers were allowed to transit the Gulf of Aden, against reimbursing EWR/K&R premia and crew bonus; also, that if the vessel 'threatened/kidnapped by reason of piracy payment of hire shall be suspended'. The High Court, confirming an arbitration award on this point, held that this clause rendered the Vessel off hire throughout the period starting with her seizure in the Arabian Sea on her laden passage (after transit of Suez and the Gulf of Aden), and continuing following her release (7 months later) during emergency repairs and supplies and until regaining a position equidistant between seizure and destination. The Court held that in a charter of this nature, the geographical extent of the Gulf of Aden is not strictly defined and the natural construction of the risk allocation provision is that loss of time as a consequence of the transit should be borne by Owners.”

“In the context of the avian flu epidemic of 2015 R, a US supplier of egg products, contracted with N to fulfil, over two years, R's supply commitments. In light of an agreed but suspicious increase in the sale price and alleged failure to meet required US standards, R suspended performance, causing N to claim loss of profit damages. The first instance judge dismissed the quality issue but granted R rescission on the grounds of N's fraudulent misrepresentation as to prices. The CA dismissed N's appeal based on the test of inducement, drawing a distinction between fraudulent and non-fraudulent misrepresentation: the test in the former is less rigorous, as there is no requirement for the representee to show that he would not have entered into the contract but for the representation, it being sufficient that the fraud was "actively present to his mind".”

“Under a contract for sale and purchase of a vessel, with an NSF type "encumbrances clause" (9), Sellers disputed liability to pay a bunker claim incurred by prior bareboat sub-charters. After the (post-delivery) arrest of the vessel in the Philippines, Buyers settled the claim and started arbitration proceedings seeking an indemnity from Sellers. The tribunal found that the claim in itself did not give rise to a breach of clause 9, as it was not an in rem debt against the vessel (and bareboat sub-charterers had no authority to create a lien); however, the pre-delivery issue by them of an (un-served and unknown to Sellers) in rem writ in Singapore did place Sellers in breach of clause 9, rendering them liable to indemnify Buyers.”

“The Court upheld the first instance decision that article IV r2(b) exempts the carrier from liability if the fire was caused deliberately or barratrously (meaning without the actual fault or privity of the carrier). The appellants tried in vain to infer that barratry would be incompatible with fault or neglect of the crew (here the chief engineer) but the Court found no basis for justifying such conclusion.”

“A charterparty on an amended NYPE form contained an additional clause prohibiting deductions from hire of amounts for underperformance, except undisputed off-hire. The Tribunal held that this did not allow equitable set-off unless agreed by owners which was not the case. Charterers' argument that they were suspending rather than deducting hire was also dismissed as a meaningless distinction.”