A recap of a voyage fixture, containing an English law/ London arbitration clause, was expressed to be “subject shipper/ receivers approval….”. Before the “subject” was lifted, Charterers declined to proceed as the required “Rightship” approval was missing. Setting aside the Award of the Tribunal (upholding a concluded C/P and finding Charterers in repudiatory breach of it), the Court found that in the absence of the lifted subject – a precondition – there was no contract, no severable arbitration clause, and therefore no jurisdiction on the Tribunal’s part to rule on Charterers’ liability.

Pilots in China refused Master’s request to have their temperatures re-checked, and standoff ensued which was only resolved more than a week later. Time Charterers (NYPE) claimed off-hire either due to “default of officers or crew” or for the crew’s refusal to do their duties, or alternatively, Owners were in breach for failing to follow Charterers’ orders. The Tribunal held there was no “default of officers or crew” nor had the crew refused their duties by implementing company policy. However, by unilaterally imposing conditions on the pilots, Owners had failed to follow Charterers’ legitimate “orders and directions”. Charterers were awarded hire and bunkers for time lost as damages.

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.