“In January the Court ordered sale of the vessel "Force India" in respect of sums secured by a mortgage. Shortly afterwards, despite the advanced state of the sale procedure, the Claimant applied to set aside the sale Order, in light of an agreement with a third party who had committed to repay the loan. The Court held that in the circumstances, the sale was no longer required and reluctantly rescinded the Order, overcoming its concerns for the reputation of the Admiralty Marshal's sales in the market, only because of the "unusual and perhaps exceptional circumstances".”

“A fixture agreed by an exchange of emails concluded "owise as dean Gencon94 CP ind Cls Paramount...to be amended/ altered as per above main terms agreed...". The Tribunal, ruling on its own jurisdiction, found that the Gencon 94 Arbitration Clause (19(a)) was incorporated in the fixture: there was no established meaning of "main terms" therefore no reason to exclude Gencon provisions which might be regarded as "main° just because not specifically agreed in the main terms recap, regardless of the amount of detail.”

“Under a shipbuilding contract, the builder started arbitration first against the buyer, claiming US0170m and then its guarantor. Ruling on a preliminary issue as to whether the guarantee was a demand bond or a "see to it" guarantee, the Commercial Court found that on a true construction of the guarantee, there was no room for a presumption that it was a demand bond, therefore it was a "see to it" guarantee — bearing in mind in particular that this was not an undertaking by a financial institution but one given by a parent company.”

“Following arrest of their Vessel at Singapore on 12 March, in relation to a cargo mis-delivery claim, head owners demanded that time charterers place the security; the Claimant time charterers (alleging that in the interim they had 'lost out on a fixture) now sought an urgent injunction compelling the Defendant voyage charterers to provide the security to obtain the release of the Vessel. The Commercial Court on 26 March granted the injunction, dismissing the Defendants' argument that the loss of the fixture opportunity nullified the urgency, acknowledging instead the volatility of the market for large crude carriers and recognising the pressing need for the provision of security to obtain release of the Vessel.”

“An amended Asbatankvoy covered one of two parcels carried for different charterers. Laytime / demurrage was to be pro-rated according to B/L quantities. The CP specified that a demurrage claim required "claim/invoice in writing and all supporting documents... within [90] days after completion of discharge". The SOF incorrectly recorded B/L quantities. The Court allowed an appeal from an arbitration, finding that the B/Ls themselves should have been provided. Owners' claim for US$56,049.36 demurrage was time-barred.”

“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.”