An “Uplift Term” was agreed in c/p (NYPE) under which Owners would supply an additional 200-300 mt delivery bunkers, against increased hire. Owners subsequently supplied 195 mt. Charterers sought a declaration that the minimum quantity had not been supplied and the “Uplift Term” not triggered, whilst Owners argued the “Additional Requirements” clause (defining “abt” as +/- 5%) was applicable. The Tribunal agreed with Owners; the parties intended “abt” to qualify all bunker quantities, its omission a clear mistake the Tribunal had power to correct, and its inclusion necessary for business efficacy.

An “Uplift Term” was agreed in c/p (NYPE) under which Owners would supply an additional 200-300 mt delivery bunkers, against increased hire. Owners subsequently supplied 195 mt. Charterers sought a declaration that the minimum quantity had not been supplied and the “Uplift Term” not triggered, whilst Owners argued the “Additional Requirements” clause (defining “abt” as +/- 5%) was applicable. The Tribunal agreed with Owners; the parties intended “abt” to qualify all bunker quantities, its omission a clear mistake the Tribunal had power to correct, and its inclusion necessary for business efficacy.

The Tribunal held that as sanctions had prevented receivers’ payment and Iran stopped issuing import permits, it became impossible for Charterers to perform their obligations under the COA, triggering the force majeure clause contained therein. Owners appealed under s.69 AA, inter alia, on the point of law of whether Charterers were entitled to invoke force majeure for an inability to make payments and import the goods into Iran. The Court found such questions of law “thinly veiled challenges to the Tribunal’s findings of fact” and dismissed the appeal.

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.