“Under an amended Synacomex 90 c/p, an NOR was valid (by reason of c1.8 and 'WIPON') when served at the designated location (even if outside port limits), the intended loading place then being unavailable and the Master having warranted hold readiness. Subsequent hold inspection failure did not invalidate the NOR (as in the Mexico I) because the c/p specified the laytime effects of hold failure.”

“A LMAA tribunal set a time for charterers' defence "on a peremptory basis" (10 weeks after service of the claim, both the 28-day period and an extension set by order having expired). The tribunal declined charterers' application to be allowed to serve their defence and counterclaim late, rejecting charterers' complaint that the Tribunal had not specified, when making the peremptory order, which of the 4 possible sanctions it would adopt (under s.41 (7) Arbitration Act), pointing to the 'norm' being an award, and indicating that it was not open to the Tribunal to review a peremptory deadline, once it had passed. Nor did the refusal amount to dismissal of the counterclaim — this could not occur without the counterclaim having been brought in the first place.”

“Clause 12(e) of a c/p on an amended Bimco SupplyTime 2017 form contained provided that payments of hire, fuel invoices and disbursements should be paid by Charterers within a certain number of days (21) from the date of receipt of the invoice without the possibility to discount or set-off. It also provided that if Charterer believed that the invoice was incorrect, they should still pay the undisputed portion of the invoice and withhold payment of the rest notifying the reason to the Owners by the due date. The Court dismissed Charterers' appeal based on the arguments that the clause was unclear or ambiguous as did not state that a failure to give notice would debar Charterers opportunity to raise any defence. The Court held that the clause was clear and is not analogous to a time bar clause or any other type of clause limiting liability and it was just the result of a commercial agreement between two equal bargaining powers that obliged charterers to raise bona fide disputes timeously as timeously payments are of essence in time charters. According to the Court a different interpretation would "make clause 12(e) a dead letter".”

“The Court declined to grant owners an anti-suit injunction restraining proceedings against them by buyers of a cargo of cycle oil carried on board their vessel. An implied contract (said by owners (i) to arise out of buyers' conduct and (ii) to include a B/L exclusive English law/jurisdiction clause -ECJ) even if established, was insufficient to satisfy Art.25 of the Recast Brussels Regulation: whilst the B/L was in writing, the required consent to it and its ECJ was not.”

“The Court dismissed the appeal against an arbitration award which ordered the Buyer, K, to pay the balance of the price under a contract of sale of a cargo of sunflower meal. K was victim of fraud as the payment was directed to an account other than that of the Seller, A, by a forged email. The Court upheld the Tribunal's ruling that K bore the risk of false instructions and its contractual obligation was to ensure that payment in cash was received by A in its nominated bank account. The Court however remitted the award back to the Tribunal on the grounds of serious irregularity in failing to hear K's argument as to validity of the true instructions.”

“The Commercial Court decides that the jurisdiction clause of a charterparty applies also to an agreement for settlement of disputes under the charter, even though the settlement agreement contained no jurisdiction clause.”