In a dispute over rent escalation provisions, Aircraft Lessors sought an order for disclosure of data held on mobile phones of the Saudi Arabian Lessee’s employees. The employer’s right to possession/ access to the phones, pursuant to Saudi law, could not be made out, nor (c.f. English law) could such right be presumed. Therefore, the necessary “control” element for an order under the Disclosure Pilot Scheme (PD51U) was absent, and the Court had no authority under CPR to order exercise of “best endeavours” to obtain documents not within a respondent’s control.

The Panamax Alexander (“PA”), bound for Iran, struck the Osios David (“OD”) and a Collision Jurisdiction Agreement on the ASG2 form (the ‘CJA’) was agreed, requiring security “reasonably satisfactory to the other”. OD refused PA’s Club LOU tendered, on the grounds that risk of non-payment under its sanction clause would “effectively render the LOU useless”. Alleging that the refusal was a breach of the CJA, PA sought as damages the cost of the alternative security provided. Although finding that, given the Iranian nexus, inclusion of the tendered clause was reasonable, the Court held that on a true construction, the CJA did not oblige OD to accept that security (it remaining the recipient’s choice to accept an LOU or arrest) and PA’s claim failed.

After MSC Opera ran into River Countess in Venice, Demise Charterers (MSC) accepted responsibility, conceding that Italian law governed recoverability. However, they challenged both title to sue of River Countess’ Charterers and recoverability of their pure economic losses. Relying on Italian law experts, the Court held that Charterers had (in contrast to English law) title to sue in tort and that their net loss of revenue together with ex gratia refunds and payments to passengers were recoverable (subject to proof of causation, unavailability of a substitute vessel and reasonable mitigation of damage to brand/goodwill).

An arbitration agreement provided that the parties were to first seek settlement by mediation. The claimants simultaneously commenced arbitration and sought a stay pending mediation. The respondents failed to engage, later arguing that the claimants’ failure first to mediate deprived the tribunal of jurisdiction to determine the (now time-barred) claim. The Court, dismissing the respondents’ s.67 challenge to the tribunal’s jurisdiction award, found the arbitration was validly commenced, with the mediation requirement being merely a procedural condition..

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.