In response to Owners’ demurrage claim under a Shellvoy 6, Charterers contended that in breach, the Vessel had left the discharge berth and refused to return. The Court upheld the Master’s decision finding that at all material times the berth left an unacceptable safety margin under the C/P (Q88) Under Keel Clearance policy, such that Owners could not be satisfied that the Vessel would discharge cargo always ‘safely afloat’ as required. There was no breach by Owners. Although not a necessary finding, the Court commented that almost certainly Charterers would have been in breach had they persisted in their orders.

The Claimant solicitors acted for the Defendant clients in fraud/ conspiracy claims brought by Sheik Mohammed. As the Defendants settled with the Sheik on drop-hands terms, depriving the Claimants of any cost recovery, the latter sued their former clients for some £3m, alleging breach of an implied duty of good faith in the retainer. The CA, upholding the Commercial Court, rejected the implication of such a term as it failed to fulfil criteria of business efficacy or obviousness; nor was a solicitor's retainer a 'relational' contract where such a duty might apply.

Following the Commercial Court’s confirmation that Owners could terminate an amended Barecon 2001 and repossess 2 Vessels (the US having designated Charterers’ beneficial owner as a global terrorist – a C/P “Event of Default”), Charterers appealed the right to repossession and the absence of relief from forfeiture. The CA confirmed the Court below: (i) a demand for payment was a C/P option not a pre-condition to repossession, and (ii) although the US sanction regime was itself sufficient to exclude relief from forfeiture, Charterers’ misconduct (pre-litigation dishonest dealings with Owners and then misleading the Court) reinforced this conclusion.

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.