“BSGR challenged an arbitration award against it for US$1.247 billion arising out of a joint venture with Vale exploiting iron ore deposits in Guinea. The Court declined BSGR's application to set aside an order granting Vale permission to enforce the award as a judgment — or to stay the same — on the grounds that there was a presumption that enforcement could proceed notwithstanding the challenge, there was no public policy defence, the challenge (being based solely on arbitrator bias) was not one obviously going to succeed, there was no evidence that if the challenge succeeded Vale would be unable to repay, nor any other concerns militating against enforcement.”

“Under a time charterparty on amended NYPE 1946 form, the vessel failed the hose test on her arrival to loadport and was placed off hire. Owners claimed hire submitting that the hose test that took place was too stringent and uncontractual, i.e. far in excess of standard practice in the industry. The Tribunal held that it was not possible to conclude that the hose test was not carried out in accordance with the IACS guidelines as there was no reason for the surveyor to do so nor was it credible that the crew should accede to a request to carry out an irregular test without lodging a formal note of protest. The claim therefore failed.”

“In an SOP time charter arbitration, the Tribunal found that Charterers were correct to rely on the Master's delivery and redelivery bunker figures rather than the vessel's calculated consumption, as the Owners had argued.”

“A NOR was held to be valid even though the ship was not in a condition to perform the service required when it was tendered. The Tribunal found that the lack of a second anchor, required for river navigation, was not critical since a substitute tug could be ordered instead. The NOR tendered was therefore valid even though the Owners refused to deploy the tug as they considered it was "too expensive".”

“In a cargo misdelivery claim, the unpaid claimant bank holding B/Ls as security, defeated the carrier's argument that the bills had become 'spent' by the time the bank acquired possession. Neither the charterer/seller ordering discharge nor the buyer/receiver of the cargo was entitled to delivery under the bills. Such a delivery was not therefore capable of causing bills to be spent ('Erin Schulte' case considered). Nor did the bank's grant of the loan, with knowledge of the delivery without bills, constitute its authorisation or consent to the carrier.”

“Just before the 1-year time bar in 2014, Alba commenced cargo claim proceedings against MSC. In 2018, MSC (who had counterclaimed for cargo disposal) applied to strike out the claim because Alba failed to apply for a CMC by the deadline set in the CPR. Despite finding the 4-and-a-half-year delay inordinate and inexcusable, the Court declined to strike out, as serious prejudice had not been caused to MSC, nor had a fair trial been prejudiced. Relevant factors were the absence of intentional delay or wholesale disregard of the CPR. Nevertheless, despite the usual conditions not being satisfied but to reflect Alba's "serious default", the Court ordered it to secure MSC's costs.”