“Charterers under an amended Synacomex CP, disputed demurrage, alleging that Owners' delay on the voyage/failure to ventilate the grain cargo/disinfect topsides caused cargo damage and infestation, prolonging discharge. The Court found that Owners were free to and did select a usual and reasonable route but although in breach of warranted speed, there was no specific resulting damage. Conversely the failures to ventilate and disinfect both constituted breaches of Owners' Hague Visby Rules Article Ill r2 duties and caused increased 'crust' and infestation respectively, giving rise to identifiable delays, to the extent of which Charterers were relieved from demurrage liability.”

“The Court refused Owners' application to admit the MAIB (UK investigatory body) report into arbitration proceedings with Charterers, further to the UK-flag vessel grounding in the UAE. Pursuant to the Merchant Shipping Regulations 2012, the only purpose of MAIB investigations is to improve maritime safety (and not to attribute or apportion blame). MAIB reports are therefore inadmissible in any judicial proceedings, unless a court determines that the interest of justice outweigh any prejudice to future accident safety investigation and relations between the UK and foreign states or international organisations. The Court found that in this case there was no reason to depart from the general rule, as maritime safety and international relations are of a greater importance than Owners' commercial interests in recovering their loss.”

“Under a loan agreement to fund vessel purchases, Lenders served an Acceleration Notice, following which Borrowers failed to pay the amount sought. Lenders relied upon 'No set-off and 'Event of Default' clauses and sought summary judgment. Borrowers alleged (i) that the Notice was invalid, (ii) placing Lenders in breach, (iii) preventing Borrowers' compliance. For the purposes of their application, Lenders accepted (i) to (iii) but relied solely on the 'No set-off' clause which, they said, stopped any application of the 'prevention principle' relied on by Borrowers. The Court held that that clause could not stop Borrowers from arguing that amounts were never due in the first place, therefore the summary judgment application failed, and Borrowers were free to argue their defence.”

“Under a time-charter, Charterers underpaid the 4th (15- day) hire instalment but paid the 5th and 6th in full. The day after the 6th instalment fell due, Owners served an anti-technicality notice and withdrew the Vessel, relying upon the BIMCO Non Payment of Hire Clause: "If the hire is not received by midnight on the due date....Owners shall notify Charterers [and] If the payment is not received within 72 running hours, Owners may by giving written notice within 12 running hours withdraw the Vessel....". The High Court, on appeal, upheld the Tribunal's finding that the BIMCO clause was not engaged, because it could only be operated for the immediately preceding 15- day instalment (which was paid in full) and not for arrears, rendering Owners' withdrawal a "renunciatory/ repudiatory" breach.”

“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.”