Time Charterers (NYPE) redelivered with excess ROB (about +155% IFO and +30% MGO). The Tribunal held that Owners were to reimburse ROB in excess of a 5% tolerance (for ‘about’) at neither the C/P redelivery price, nor the purchase price paid by Charterers but at the market one (in the event, higher than both).

The Claimant Owners of 2 demise (Barecon 2001) chartered vessels notified “Events of Default and Termination” when the individual beneficially owning the Defendant charterers was declared by the U.S. a “Special Designated Global Terrorist”. The Court dismissed Charterers’ challenge to Owners’ rights to termination and repossession, finding that (i) under the C/Ps neither step required further notices, both were justified (ii) a thwarted purchase option did not constitute an unenforceable “penalty” and (iii) whilst equitable relief from forfeiture might apply to a demise with purchase option, it was inappropriate here due to Charterers’ misconduct (including misleading the Court).

Quadra, having lost paid-for goods in the “Agroinvestgroup Fraud”, sought reimbursement under their Cargo Policy covering “declared shipments….storage operations”. Underwriters declined, arguing that there was no proof of lost goods nor any insurable interest. The Court dismissed Quadra’s argument that the Policy covered the entire “adventure” and agreed that it was restricted to goods which had existed. But it accepted Quadra’s evidence in this regard and as Quadra had paid the price and had a right to immediate possession of the goods, it had an insurable interest and a right to an indemnity.

Owners appealed a Chinese court’s judgment holding them liable for cargo (heat) damage under a B/L, but then settled with cargo interests and sought an indemnity under the ICA. Dismissing Charterers’ arguments, the Tribunal held that even though the damage arguably arose post-discharge, the allegation related to carriage, making it a qualifying “Cargo Claim”; it was not improperly settled and thus met the threshold. However, the damage could not be attributed to loading or handling so 8(d) rather than 8(b) applied, resulting in a 50/50 apportionment, which was not displaced by any “act or neglect”.

When US sanctions applied to Charterers, Owners invoked the force majeure clause of the COA. Charterers started arbitration and the Tribunal found that Owners’ refusal to accept payment in € instead of $ was a failure to exercise “reasonable endeavours” specified for reliance on the force majeure clause. The Court overruled the Tribunal, finding that the “drastic impact of sanctions” would not be limited to the payment aspect but involve further “penalties” for continuing to perform a contract with a sanctioned party. Those problems would not have been overcome by payment in €, so the “reasonable endeavours” provision did not oblige Owners to accept non-contractual performance and Owners were not precluded from reliance on the clause.

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.