Multiple cargo Claimants, claiming cargo damage and short delivery under 14 B/Ls, alleged the cargo had been sold prior discharge to two of their number, who, as B/L holders had obtained title to sue pursuant to s.2(2)(a) of COGSA 1992. Shipowners put the Claimants to strict proof, from the outset, to evidence all endorsements and B/Ls movements, and that the cargo had not been sold onwards. The Tribunal placed little weight on witness evidence from the alleged cargo seller, nor on letters from the two Claimants confirming receipt of B/Ls and no onwards sale (produced some 4 years later). Contemporaneous material from the Claimants themselves was crucial – and absent. The Claimants had not established title to sue and their claim was dismissed.

Multiple cargo Claimants, claiming cargo damage and short delivery under 14 B/Ls, alleged the cargo had been sold prior discharge to two of their number, who, as B/L holders had obtained title to sue pursuant to s.2(2)(a) of COGSA 1992. Shipowners put the Claimants to strict proof, from the outset, to evidence all endorsements and B/Ls movements, and that the cargo had not been sold onwards. The Tribunal placed little weight on witness evidence from the alleged cargo seller, nor on letters from the two Claimants confirming receipt of B/Ls and no onwards sale (produced some 4 years later). Contemporaneous material from the Claimants themselves was crucial – and absent. The Claimants had not established title to sue and their claim was dismissed.

Charterers (BP), holding B/Ls at the time, novated the charterparty to cargo buyers who thereafter took delivery without production of B/Ls. BP subsequently indorsed the B/Ls in favour of the Claimant cargo financiers who claimed against Owners for misdelivery. In siding with Owners, the Court held the B/Ls did not contain the contract of carriage post-novation nor was this the parties’ intention. The Claimant’s financing scheme would in any event have permitted delivery without B/Ls, and the Claimant’s loss was found not to have been caused by the delivery without B/Ls.

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.