The University suffered property damage when a previously undiscovered undetonated German bomb (nicknamed 'the Hermann' after Göring) dropped in 1942 was subjected to a controlled detonation. The Claimant Insurers sought a declaration that the damage was "occasioned by war" entitling them to rely on the policy war exclusion clause. In determining the “proximate cause” of the loss, the Court held the common-sense analysis was that it was caused by the explosion necessitated by the reasonable and correct decision to detonate; that decision was necessitated by the original dropping of the bomb which was the “obvious proximate cause of the damage”. The damage was “occasioned by war”.

The Claimant claimed an unpaid amount under a share purchase agreement, against the purchaser (D1, a Cypriot company) and guarantor (D2, a BVI company). The Defendants counterclaimed that they were entitled to set-off the equivalent amount. In ordering that the Defendants secure the Claimants’ costs of defending the counterclaim (by way of a first-Class London bank guarantee), the Court found there was reason to believe (and not just suspect) that D1 would be unable to pay those costs. Nor was it willing to accept that an undertaking by D2 to pay D1’s costs was sufficient: despite contentions that D2 and its subsidiaries had net assets over USD67m and cash over USD10m, the evidence was unconvincing and D2 was a BVI corporation, not obliged to file audited accounts.

In a dispute between those interested in a Liberian one-ship company, the Claimant Iranian national (resident in Qatar) claimed that the 1st Defendant Iranian national (resident in England and Greece) had failed to honour a Trust and had ‘stolen’ and sold the subject Vessel, whereas the latter claimed that the shares (and Vessel) were his outright (having been exchanged for Persian carpets worth some USD9m). The present judgment involved D1’s application for security for costs, which the Court granted, as it met the CPR gateway tests and the “factual complication” (including allegations of fraud, forgeries and misconduct) made it impossible for the Court to investigate the merits and form a view on the likely success or otherwise of the claim by the time it reached trial.

Under a T/C on an amended Asbatime 1981 form, Charterers warranted that their orders would respect the C/P maximum duration, failing which Owners (Clause 119) had the option to refuse an offending order, or to perform it “without prejudice to their right to claim damages, including consequential damages….in case of late redelivery”. Following an admitted late delivery, Charterers argued that damages should be limited to the difference between market and C/P rate for the extended period. However, the Tribunal also awarded Owners the losses they claimed thereafter, arising out of cancellation of the follow-on fixture repositioning the Vessel for a planned dry-docking. The Tribunal found that Clause 119 was an exception to the ordinary measure of damages and that here Charterers were aware at the time of fixing of the importance of timely redelivery due to dry-dock commitments and the commercial likelihood of a repositioning fixture.

An amended NYPE 93 placed the Vessel off-hire in case of hold inspection failure “until the vessel … passes”. The Tribunal implied Charterers’ obligation to carry out any reinspection with reasonable diligence and without undue delay, and found that a delay of some 12 days since Owners’ notification that holds were cleaned was excessive and did not qualify as off-hire. On appeal, the Court agreed that the Tribunal had applied the correct legal test for the implied term (objectively necessary or obvious) but ruled that off-hire did not cease on Owners’ notification but when the reinspection ought to have taken place.

“Sydney” collided with “Apollo” in the approaches to Tianjin, causing collective damage of some USD13.5m. The Court found that despite adequate manning and look-out, the “Apollo” Master had failed to appreciate how the Vessels were approaching each-other (which was in fact port to port) and attempted to cross ahead of “Sydney” “in flagrant breach of the crossing rule”. Despite some criticisms of “Sydney” none was found to be causative, and “Apollo” was held 100% responsible.