After ordering the Vessel to wait off port limits, Charterers required discharge at a 1st then 2nd berth, only permitted by the (1SP/ 1SB) Voyage C/P by “special agreement”. Owners insisted that Charterers first paid outstanding AWRP and fuel costs for a trip to replenish, both occasioned by the waiting. Charterers, having initially agreed, failed to pay. The Tribunal dismissed Charterers’ duress claim – Owners simply drove a hard bargain; nor was the agreement outside the C/P jurisdiction clause – it was concluded pursuant to a C/P term. Owners were entitled to both amounts.

The defendant cargo buyers sought a ‘preliminary injunction’ from the Brazilian Court requiring discharge of cargo, despite B/Ls being withheld for non-payment. In England, Owners claimed an anti-suit injunction (‘ASI’) in support of the B/Ls’ London Arbitration clause. Although seeking interim performance elsewhere would not necessarily constitute a breach, Owners met the ‘high probability’ threshold in showing that the order in Brazil would, in practical terms, be final, outflanking the Arbitration Clause. Similar relief could have been sought in the chosen forum and the ASI was granted.

Following a deadly fire caused by dangerous cargo, the Tribunal issued a series of Awards, finding Time Charterers MSC liable to Owners, albeit not finding them negligent. MSC sought to limit liability under MSA 1995 (the Amended 1976 Convention). Owners challenged the right to limit, relying, inter alia, on Art.4 (excluding losses resulting “from [MSC’s] …act or omission, committed… recklessly”), arguing the Tribunal’s finding of no negligence obiter. The Court disagreed, ruling that the finding formed part of the final relief given by the Tribunal. Art.4 was not available to Owners and MSC could limit.

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.