After crossing in front of “ Wilforce” ( sailing east), “Western Moscow” turned to port (west) in order to join the westbound channel of the Singaporean Strait Traffic Scheme, and informed “Wilforce” they would “pass port to port”. A collision nevertheless ensued. “Western Moscow’s failure to sound/display appropriate signals, although in breach of COLREGs, was held non-causative. Rather, its poor lookout, “especially striking” when turning westwards where eastbound traffic was expected, caused its failure to “pass port to port”. However, “Wilforce”, in breach of local rules stipulating “maximum manoeuvring readiness”, had failed to reduce speed when collision risk was appreciated. The Court found “Western Moscow” 3 x more to blame and liability was apportioned 75%/25%.

Further to an electrical breakdown, Time-Charterers first placed the Vessel off-hire, and then terminated the Charterparty (with cargo on board), relying on the C/P cancellation clause and a repudiatory breach. Whilst the breakdown inferred breach of delivery condition, the Tribunal held it was not repudiatory; nor had Charterers complied with cancellation clause notice requirements. Until the Vessel proceeded to the discharge port and delivered the cargo, she was not at Owners’ disposal and not redelivered; the C/P remained live but the vessel was, however, off-hire from the moment she could not follow Charterers’ orders until commencement of discharge.

Further to an electrical breakdown, Time-Charterers first placed the Vessel off-hire, and then terminated the Charterparty (with cargo on board), relying on the C/P cancellation clause and a repudiatory breach. Whilst the breakdown inferred breach of delivery condition, the Tribunal held it was not repudiatory; nor had Charterers complied with cancellation clause notice requirements. Until the Vessel proceeded to the discharge port and delivered the cargo, she was not at Owners’ disposal and not redelivered; the C/P remained live but the vessel was, however, off-hire from the moment she could not follow Charterers’ orders until commencement of discharge.

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.