Omya succeeded in its claim for GBP765,094.40 and, having made a (rejected) Pt.36 offer to accept GBP756,287.05, sought enhanced interest (up to 10% above base) and indemnity costs. Despite the damages exceeding the offer by a margin of just 1.15%, the Court ruled that it was a genuine one and the usual consequences should apply. As the Court found the Defendants’ general conduct to be highly unreasonable (implausible and absurd defences and denials) it awarded indemnity costs both before and after expiry of the offer; due to the narrow margin, however, it restricted interest to 5% above base.

The Cargo was delivered to the buyer without the production of bills of lading. HLT became insolvent and defaulted on credit facilities provided by the Bank in which had entered into trade financing arrangements. The Bank sought summary judgement for breach on the contract of carriage and it acquired rights of suit as the lawful holder of the bills of lading. The Court held the summary judgement would be refused and the owners had arguable defences that should go to the trial; the Bank had not met the threshold of honest conduct and the defence that the bills were not spent was not arguable.

Omya succeeded in its claim for GBP765,094.40 and, having made a (rejected) Pt.36 offer to accept GBP756,287.05, sought enhanced interest (up to 10% above base) and indemnity costs. Despite the damages exceeding the offer by a margin of just 1.15%, the Court ruled that it was a genuine one and the usual consequences should apply. As the Court found the Defendants’ general conduct to be highly unreasonable (implausible and absurd defences and denials) it awarded indemnity costs both before and after expiry of the offer; due to the narrow margin, however, it restricted interest to 5% above base.

Kyla sought damages of some USD32m in connection with pre-2008 FFAs. It sought to rely on s32 of the Limitation Act to postpone the (otherwise) 2013 time bar. The Court ruled that although Kyla’s underlying claim was well founded, a reasonable person should have taken at least a degree of serious interest in why such losses were suffered and thus Kyla could with reasonable diligence have discovered the relevant mistake, disloyalty or concealment within the 6 years. The claim was thus time-barred, and dismissed.

Owners settled cargo interests’ claim (heat damaged soybeans) and sought 100% contribution from Time Charterers pursuant to cl.8 of the ICA (incorporated into the C/P) on the basis that there was “clear and irrefutable evidence” that the cargo was loaded with excessive moisture content, thus of Charterers’ neglect. The Tribunal, whilst finding the settlement reasonable (cl.4 ICA), nevertheless awarded Owners just 50%, there being no “clear and irrefutable evidence” of Charterers’ neglect, indeed rain wetting due to Owners’ failure promptly to close hatch covers was equally possible, if not likely.

Cash buyers (NKD) of the Shagang Giant purported to terminate the MOA on the grounds that Indian Covid-19 restrictions constituted force majeure preventing both Vessel from reaching outer anchorage (“the Delivery Location”) and Sellers (Bart) from transferring title as per the MOA. The Court disagreed. The force majeure clause was applicable to an inability to transfer title, not an inability to deliver; Sellers had not been precluded from the former, either by inability to reach the anchorage or by government restriction. In any event the Court found the Vessel had arrived at the Delivery Location. Sellers were entitled to the deposit (which exceeded the total losses claimed).