Under a T/C, delays in berthing followed the Vessel’s grounding at her Mississippi River anchorage. With no berthing prospects in sight, and fearing another grounding, (but against advice of the local Pilots association), the Master shifted the Vessel to a 2nd anchorage where, as warned against, the Vessel swung 360◦ requiring her anchors to be disentangled with tug and pilot assistance. The Tribunal found (i) that although the first anchorage was safe for the Vessel, Charterers were nonetheless in breach of their ‘always afloat’ warranty and (ii) the Master’s choice was not unreasonable but the 2nd anchorage was unsafe, placing Charterers in breach of their warranty. Owners’ claims for the costs of re-floating, shifting, re-anchoring and disentangling the anchors succeeded, as did their claim for withheld hire during the delayed berthing (even that part of the delay caused by the Master’s late action to disentangle anchors).

Disputes arose under 2 bareboat charters over Owners’ Termination Notices (following shareholding changes in sub-charterers). After starting arbitration, Owners sought injunctive relief from the Court under s.44(3) of the Arbitration Act (orders to preserve evidence or assets in urgent cases) requiring the immediate redelivery of the Vessels, as during the proceedings the Vessels would be exposed to risks and loss of Owners’ opportunity. The Court declined the injunction because Owners failed to prove urgency and further, the injunction, in bringing about redelivery, would thwart the arbitrators’ role in deciding validity of the Notices.

The Claimant sought an ant-suit injunction restraining Russian proceedings in favour of ICC arbitration in Paris, as specified in an arbitration clause in a bond expressed to be governed by English law. The Court declined the injunction, ruling that it had no such jurisdiction, given that the arbitration was to be in France (where substantial justice could be done).

When the Vessel’s master fell ill and subsequently died, the Panama Canal Authority cancelled the pre-booked transit and placed the Vessel “on hold” pending production of contemporaneous negative Covid-19 PCR tests of crew/officers. Under the NYPE C/P, Charterers held the vessel off-hire from arrival until transit. Rejecting the claim, the Tribunal found that the situation did not fall within Cl.15 “any other cause” (there was no “whatsoever”). Nor within various additional clauses including “Off-hire” due to “threatened detention by any authority” – there was no detention as such; nor “Certificates and Vaccinations” - relating to advance certificates rather than transitory PCR tests; nor a “Panama…Canal” clause, relating only to Vessel fittings and suitability for transit.

Those interested in a cargo of cocoa beans claimed against the carrier in respect of damage. The Court found that the condensation damage was caused by post-discharge lack of container ventilation pending de-vanning. The contractual claim (by the B/L holder/ endorsee) failed as the B/L provided that carrier’s liability ended upon tendering the goods for delivery (here discharge) and incorporated the Hague Rules to the same effect.  The negligence claim by the alleged goods owner failed as there was neither evidence as to cargo ownership at the material time, nor basis for carrier liability outside the terms of the B/L.

The Court granted Esso an extended interim injunction against the Defendant and persons unknown (environmental protesters) restraining them from disrupting construction on its Southampton to London Oil Pipeline Project, on the basis of the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. It was immaterial that not all protest was aimed directly at Esso.