Pursuant to a supply contract, Claimants supplied bunkers, ordered by Time Charterers (D1) to a Vessel and, being unpaid, commenced arbitration for the invoiced amount, against (D1) and Disponent Owners, who subsequently became bareboat charterers, (D2) . The Tribunal found that the contract definition of ‘Buyer’ was wide enough to cover Ds 1 and 2 and that a clause creating a maritime lien pursuant to US law, created one applicable outside the US, and which attached prior to D2’s acquisition of its interest. The Tribunal found Ds1 and 2 jointly and severally liable for the invoiced amount, interest and costs.

The Claimant Owners claimed unpaid T/C hire in High Court proceedings and to secure that claim, arrested a ship, believed to be in Charterers’ ownership, at Gibraltar. The Defendant Charterers sought to set off against hire (i) tortious damages for wrongful arrest; (ii) damages for breach of the C/P delivery/maintenance provisions by reason of hull fouling and (iii) underperformance.

In principle, the Court would have entertained (i) Gibraltar Admiralty law reflecting English law - but found the arrest not wrongful. It disallowed (ii) damages for hull fouling as they would duplicate (iii) the performance claim, which was partially allowed - some good weather underperformance having been made out.

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.

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.