Owners made pre-contractual speed/consumption representations, which were included in the t/c warranties, save as for the statement “above…is based on..last 3 voys”. In addition to deducting for over-consumption, Charterers alleged misrepresentation, then fixed the Vessel for a considerable voyage (UK-Malaysia) before purporting to rescind/ terminate the t/c. The CA, upholding the decision below, held there was no misrepresentation; statements of past performance were not representations of future performance, nor had they induced the contract. Further, despite Charterers reserving their rights, ordering the Vessel on that long voyage had affirmed the contract.

An amended NYPE provided for holds to be ready to the satisfaction of Charterers’ nominated surveyor, failing which off-hire from failure to passing. The parties agreed, by email, to a “pre-inspection” before the official “final inspection…alongside”. Following holds’ failure at the pre-inspection, Charterers claimed off-hire. The Tribunal found that (i) “pre-inspection” here meant the parties considered it a ‘trial run’ to protect them from any impact of the official inspection (ii) there was a representation in the emails that the CP off-hire regime would be unaffected by the pre-inspection. Therefore, the Vessel was off hire only from failure at the official inspection.

X supplied Owners with bunkers which had been purchased from its subsidiary Y under a sale contract. Y in turn had bought those bunkers from the Supplier who, fearing Y’s failure to pay, obtained payment from Owners directly. Owners subsequently resisted X’s claim for payment of the price and pleaded “failure of consideration” as the sale contract between X and Y limited consumption to X’s own vessel prior to payment. The Tribunal found that the remittance to the Supplier did not release Owners from their payment obligation to X nor did they have any right to set-off. Owners’ defence of failure of consideration also failed as the definition of “Buyer” in the sale contract included the “vessel supplied”, thus Owners had acquired the right to use the bunkers.

Overturning the decisions of the courts below, the SC held the crossing rule (vessel with the other on her starboard side gives way) was applicable to the Alexandra I while approaching channel/awaiting pilot and sent the matter back to the High Court for collision damage to be re-apportioned. It found that Alexandra I had failed to give way. However, the consequences of the failure were avoidable had it not been for the Ever Smart’s own “gross” fault of having no lookout, despite warning by pilot, and breach of the narrow channel rule. Damage was apportioned 70:30 in favour of Alexandra I.

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.