“Responding to claims totalling some GBP16.Sm under personal guarantees, the Defendants had counterclaimed for conspiracy to raid and seize their assets, contrary to Russian law. Some 22 months after the trial which spanned 6 months, the High Court allowed the claim and dismissed the counterclaim for lack of proof. The CA held that the Judge's requirement that the Defendants establish "the facts to be incapable of innocent explanation" set the bar too high, rendering the judgment unsafe and that a retrial should take place. The delayed judgment, although inexcusably in excess of the unwritten 3 month rule, did not alone render it unsafe.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”