“Charterers brought an underperformance claim under an amended NYPE form c/p in reliance on a weather bureau report. Clause 77 provided that "evidence of the weather conditions to be taken as reported daily on the noon position report to the Charterers...". The Tribunal found that the weather bureau's approach, which divided the 24-hour period in four 6-hourly readings, was contrary to the c/p performance warranty. A period of less than a full day was insufficient in order to calculate the vessel's performance and in particular unjustly benefitted Charterers as no accurate allowance was made for currents during periods between the six-hourly entries. Therefore, Owners were entitled to a refund of Charterers' deduction from hire.”

“Charterers made a deduction from hire on the grounds of an underperformance claim under a cp on a NYPE 1993 form. The Tribunal found that the deduction was unlawful as it constituted a breach of clause 46 of the cp, pursuant to which "Charterers are entitled to deduct from last sufficient hire payments only value of bunkers on redelivery...". Charterers' argument that the clause dealt only with bunkers adjustments but did not preclude equitable set-off of performance claims was rejected. In fact, it was held that the purpose of the clause was to protect Owners from possible iniquitous ad hoc deductions disguised as equitable set off and if Charterers had a performance claim, they should have claimed damages independently.”

“The Commercial Court held that the "actionable fault" defence under Rule D of the York Antwerp Rules is available to the issuer of a General Average guarantee in the standard wording approved by the Association of Average Adjusters and the Institute of London Underwriters. Under this form, the guarantor has the obligation to "... pay any contributions to General Average ... which may hereafter be ascertained to be properly due ...". The Court found that the word "due" means the same as legally owing or payable; but GA does not become owing or payable unless and until a court rules on the merits of a Rule D defence ("properly"). This conclusion was meant to be in accordance with the settled practice and understanding of the shipping industry such that only very clear wording could justify departing from it.”

“Following the sale of a Capesize bulk carrier for demolition only and despite their undertaking not to trade her further, buyers continued to trade the vessel sought the lifting of the covenant. Sellers rejected that request (as the purpose of the sale was to reduce oversupply in the market) and sued for compensation, including 'negotiating damages' being a sum of money as might reasonably have been demanded by them in exchange for permitting the continuation of the breach of the covenant. The Commercial Court rejected the claim, holding that the undertaking not to trade was akin to a non-compete obligation which did not fall within the category of cases where 'negotiating damages' were available as a measure of a sellers' loss.”

“A charterparty for the carriage of logs contained a clause, 66, which made the tendering of NOR at loadport conditional on Owners' promise that "...the Vessel's holds will be clean, dry and free of cargo residues...". Upon arrival at loadport the vessel's holds were found to be infested and the authorities ordered fumigation. Although Owners contended that infestation was not contemplated by clause 66, the Tribunal held the NOR invalid as the presence of insects was in any event a breach of the duty under common law regarding the condition of the holds and the vessel was not ready until fumigation had been completed.”

“Owners and their co-insured Bank claimed on the war risk insurance following the boarding and setting on fire of the Vessel in the Gulf of Aden in 2011. The Court had struck out Owners' claim, for disobedience to a disclosure order. The Bank nonetheless continued, arguing that (even in the event of Owners' wilful default — as contended by insurers) it could rely on the insured perils. The Court found that the Vessel had indeed been scuttled and, as a result, "piracy" was unavailable, as objectively, the event was motivated by attempted fraud on insurers rather than fortuitous theft of the Vessel; "persons acting maliciously" did so in furtherance of the fraudulent plan rather than by spite or ill-will; the same applied to "malicious mischief'; senseless rather than orchestrated damage was required for "vandalism" and an intention to frustrate intended use of property for "sabotage". The Bank's claim therefore failed.”