Owners disputed Charterers’ renomination of one of the two discharge ports qualifying for additional freight, arguing that the first nomination was final. Charterers contended that changes were reasonable and foreseeable as ports were declarable “10 DAYS PRIOR VSL PASSING SINGAPORE” and that Owners were not entitled to extra freight due to failure of consideration (as they failed to perform the contractually nominated voyage). The Tribunal found no provisions in the cp which (i) authorised renomination – thus the first nomination was held final – or (ii) obliged Owners to relinquish the extra freight in case of failure to perform the nominated voyage.

Owners’ USD500,000 demurrage claim under a cp in Shellvoy 6 form was time barred pursuant to Clause 15(3) providing for notification “within [here 30] days after completion of discharge”. Discharge had completed late Christmas Eve local time (PST) in California, already Christmas Day in Europe (CET or GMT). Owners’ notice had been served within 30 days only of the latter, which Owners argued was the most closely connected time zone, being that of sender (Owners, Belgium), recipient (Charterers, Spain) or the law of the CP (England). The Court disagreed, finding that the relevant event was completion of discharge, the time of which is determined according to the discharge place time zone.

. The CA dismissed the appeal of a serial contemnor – with an unsatisfied judgment debt of more than USD70m – against a two-year custodial sentence. The appellant claimed that the judge had adopted a starting point in excess of the statutory maximum by commenting that his behaviour "merited longer than 24 months". The CA held that there was no absolute rule requiring credit for the Appellant’s admissions of contempt, and the judge was entitled to find them “meaningless” and “lip service” only. Further, the prohibition on the Appellant from leaving the jurisdiction did not amount to mitigation, but rather compliance with an earlier injunction.

B/Ls held by unpaid bunker Sellers, Phillips 66 (following insolvency of Buyers (OW)), did not give them rights to delivery of the cargo (then in the Appellants' bunker barges, which they had arrested). The Singapore CA held that the B/Ls were neither contracts of carriage nor documents of title, being atypical, in that (i) no specific discharge port (ii) deliveries to multiple ocean-going vessels and (iii) Phillips 66 had assumed the risk of non-payment (by giving a credit period and excluding reference to the B/Ls in the sales contracts).

In an ownership dispute, VTB (against the usual Undertaking) had obtained an injunction against a refinery in Russia for delivery of a cargo. Petraco, claiming title, challenged the injunction, following which the cargo was sold and proceeds paid into Court, which ordered an expedited trial as to ownership/ rights. In that action, Petraco applied to enforce VTB’s Undertaking in damages and VTB sought to join third parties related to the refinery, pursuant to CPR Pt. 20. The Court ruled that VTB remained in the position of claimant and the Court had no jurisdiction to order the joining of third parties under Pt.20. VTB would have to pursue those claims in Russia.

Under an amended NYPE 1981, Owners claimed damages for a shortfall in redelivery bunkers, based on the redelivery place price and making just a 2% allowance for ‘about’ (as Charterers had ample warning and opportunity to replenish). Charterers contended that the Vessel had insufficient tank capacity for stemming at their chosen place, and that Owners had not in fact replenished at the redelivery place. The Tribunal found the usual 5% allowance appropriate but otherwise dismissed Charterers’ arguments: there was no warranty of tank capacity and the redelivery port price – not the C/P one – applied to damages, irrespective of where replenishment happened.