
Case Summaries
Alize 1954 & Another v Allianz Elementar Versicherung AG & Others (The CMA CGM LIBRA) [2020]
“In upholding the decision of the Admiralty Court, the Court of Appeal found that the passage plan is an "attribute" of a vessel which, if defective, can render it unseaworthy. It did so in the present case, defeating the owners' general average contribution claim. The judgment suggests that navigational oversights prior to or at the commencement of a voyage can lead to owners incurring liabilities if such errors eventually cause loss.”
London Arbitration 1/20
“Having paid a 2006 cargo claim as ordered by appellate Brazilian Courts in 2017, Owners claimed indemnity from Charterers under Clause 10 of an amended GENCON Form. Charterers argued that by then the claim had become time-barred. The tribunal held by majority that the obligation of Charterers to indemnify Owners against "all consequences or liabilities" meant that time started running from payment of the cargo claim which was the consequence of signing bills more onerous than the terms of the Charterparty.”
LG v Rina and Another — Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar — CJEU Case 641/18
“Following the sinking of the Al Salam Boccacio '98, victims claimed damages in Italy against the classification/ certifying bodies, RINA, who pleaded state immunity on the basis that they were operating on behalf of the Republic of Panama (the vessel's flag state). The Italian Courts sought guidance from the Court of Justice of the EU. In rejecting Rina's argument, the CJEU found that neither the fact that the acts were performed on behalf of/in the interests of a state, nor the possibility of the state's incurring liability, in themselves, bring such acts outside the scope of the ordinary legal rules applicable to relationships between private individuals. Civil actions such as this fall within the meaning of "civil and commercial matters" of Brussels I Regulation, and the Italian Courts could, therefore, hear the case.”
Taqa Bratani Ltd & Ors v Rockrose UKCS8 LLC [2020]
“The Claimants sought declarations that their termination notices, served on the defendant operators of gas fields, pursuant to joint operating agreements ("JOAs"), were valid and effective. The JOAs contained absolute and unqualified rights of termination. The defendants argued that the rights were subject to implied obligations of good faith and consideration of the best interests of the gas fields. In the context of sophisticated commercial parties and the absence of industry practice, the Court found no reason to qualify the express absolute rights by any such implied terms.”
Americas Bulk Transport Ltd (Liberia) v Cosco Bulk Carrier Ltd (China) M.V. Grand Fortune [2020]
“COSCO chartered the Vessel to Britannia Bulkers ("Bulkers") in 2007. A recap evidenced a sub charter of the Vessel to ABT in 2008 but was silent as to the disponent owner. COSCO, as assignee of Bulkers, brought claims in arbitration against ABT under the sub-CP. ABT contended that its counterparty was Bulkers' parent, Britannia Bulk, hence there was no arbitration agreement in the sub-CP operable on behalf of Bulkers. The Court preferred material contemporaneous with the Recap (LOUs, payment instructions) over post-contractual evidence (a later draft CP) and upheld the Tribunal's ruling that Bulkers, the only entity entitled to trade the Vessel under the 2007 charter, was the sub-CP counterparty, such that the Tribunal had jurisdiction over COSCO's claim.”
Qatar National Bank QPSC v Yacht Force India, Owner of the [2020]
“To enforce a mortgage on the superyacht "Force India", the Claimant bank commenced in rem proceedings and arrested the Vessel at Southampton. The Owners acknowledged service and defended the claim. A trial of the action was fixed for January 2020. The Owners did not attend and the Court in those circumstances was entitled to and did, strike out the Defence. Nevertheless, the Court required the Claimant bank to prove its claim, given the risk that others having in rem claims against the Vessel might otherwise be prejudiced. In the event the Claimant bank did prove its claim and obtained judgment, following which ancillary orders, such as appraisal and sale, might be made.”