“The Defendant charterers (and sub-charterers) were ordered by the Court on 24 March to "provide forthwith such bail or other security as may be required to secure ...release" of a vessel arrested in Singapore. They failed to reach agreement as to the guarantee sought by the arresting bank. The Claimant disponent owners now sought an amendment to the order, such as would require security in the form sought by the arresting bank, or payment of the security sum (US$76 M) into the Singapore Court. The Commercial Court found that "as may be required" meant by the court of the place of arrest. However, in the exceptional circumstances in which Covid 19 prevented the Singapore Court ruling promptly, the Judge decided that he had jurisdiction to impose his solution, rejecting the amendment but ordering payment of the US$76 M into the Singapore Court.”

“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 The Court held that in the circumstances, the sale was no longer required and reluctantly rescinded the Order, overcoming its concerns for the reputation of the Admiralty Marshal's sales in the market, only because of the "unusual and perhaps exceptional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.”