The Claimant obtained summary Judgment on its claim against the Defendant issuer of LOIs enabling delivery without B/Ls. The Defendant had sought to amend its admissions (that the LOIs had been engaged) claiming the LOIs had been executed without authority. However, its application was dismissed by the Court who found that it had failed to offer evidence that only the directors were authorised to sign, and to show it had a realistically arguable case of lack of authority. In any case, the Court accepted that any unauthorised action would have been ratified by the Defendant seeking and obtaining delivery on the basis of the LOIs.

Time Charterers relied on vessel underperformance and withheld final hire. Owners claimed that the deduction was not made in good faith or on reasonable grounds. The Tribunal dismissed Charterers' reliance on a weather routing report, and held Charterers had failed to address the question of good faith, to substantiate their off-hire claim, and to address Owners’ assertion there was no speed/consumption warranty (the fixture containing the words “all details about/in good faith”). Owners were entitled to payment.

Time Charterers Navig8 sought costs on an indemnity basis, together with interest on damages awarded, arguing Voyage Charterers Aeturnum’s abrupt disengagement from the proceedings and their failure to comply with an interim injunction (to replace Navig8’s guarantee securing release of the arrested vessel) were “out of the norm”, and resulted in lengthier and costlier proceedings. The Court held indemnity costs were justifiable, and that Aeternum’s disengagement part way through had undoubtedly increased costs. Interest was awarded with the appropriate rate held to be the three-month USD LIBOR plus uplift of 2.5% compounded at three-monthly rests.

Time Charterers Navig8 sought costs on an indemnity basis, together with interest on damages awarded, arguing Voyage Charterers Aeturnum’s abrupt disengagement from the proceedings and their failure to comply with an interim injunction (to replace Navig8’s guarantee securing release of the arrested vessel) were “out of the norm”, and resulted in lengthier and costlier proceedings. The Court held indemnity costs were justifiable, and that Aeternum’s disengagement part way through had undoubtedly increased costs. Interest was awarded with the appropriate rate held to be the three-month USD LIBOR plus uplift of 2.5% compounded at three-monthly rests.

The Defendant Sellers sent a single Notice of Arbitration, for disputes arising from two separate FOB contracts containing identical arbitration clauses (GAFTA Rule 125), in which Sellers also questioned if the Claimant Buyers would “accept the two contracts/disputes be adjudicated under a single arbitration”. The Buyers subsequently challenged GAFTA’s award for lack of jurisdiction, disputing the single Notice was valid commencement of two arbitrations. The Court held it was because the Notice identified both disputes, s.14 AA should be interpreted “broadly and flexibly” with substance over form, and a reasonable reading of Sellers’ question showed an intention to commence both.

The Respondent Receivers of cargo on board the unmanned Stema Barge II sought to limit their liability to RTE, owners of an underwater cable, damaged when the barge dragged anchor during a storm off Dover. The Receivers relied on their personnel’s operation of the barge’s machinery as rendering them “manager or operator”, entitling them to limit under Art.1(2) of the Limitation Convention. Reversing Teare J, the CA held the term “operator” must “entail more than mere operation of machinery” or provision of crew and a higher level of operation involving “management or control” was required for Receivers to avail themselves of the limitation. The appeal was allowed.