A voyage C/P provided for discharge at 1 / 2 safe ports China, to be nominated within a certain time. Freight varied according to ports and number and was deemed earned on shipment. Charterers timeously nominated 2 ports, the 2nd attracting additional freight. Later, they nominated a different, sole port. Owners complied, under protest and on terms that the additional freight be placed in escrow. Charterers challenged the additional freight, given their replacement nomination. The Tribunal held that the first nominations were treated as if written into the C/P from the outset. Charterers’ arguments that variation, waiver or estoppel applied were all defeated by Owners’ protest and reservation recorded in the escrow. Nor could it be said that Owners were unjustly enriched by not performing the additional freight voyage, as freight had been earned on shipment.

Two crude oil sale contracts provided for pricing to be calculated by reference to particular Platts indices, and in the event of material change to Platts methodology, for a referee to determine a new source. Platts changed their methodology, the parties agreed on a referee, but not his terms of reference. Shell raised a number of issues as to the nature and extent of his task, arguably limiting it. Premier sought declaratory relief from the Court, arguing that the referee’s task was clear from the contracts and he should be allowed to get on with it. Premier succeeded, the Court ruling that it was inappropriate to decide the scope of the referee’s task before his determination, as there were no strong grounds pointing to a likelihood of the expert going wrong.

Charterers under an NYPE T/C, challenged the delivery time specified by Owners, stating that the AIS had been turned off some 442 nm away and the Vessel could not have covered that distance in the intervening period. Owners’ argument that the Vessel speeded up was rejected as the logs produced in support were unconvincing (all in the same hand, allegedly produced from memory without aid of rough logs). Charterers failed however on their performance claim by not meeting a provision requiring their evaluation to be submitted latest 15 days after the passage in question.

The Claimants sold 50,000mt soybeans on CIF terms, carried pursuant to a B/L on the Defendants’ Vessel. The receivers rejected a quantity (comprising sound and allegedly damaged cargo) and later effected a salvage sale of the damaged cargo. The Claimants sought damages being the difference between the CIF price of the rejected quantity and that achieved on the salvage sale, plus inspection, survey, and cargo handling expenses. The Defendants admitted liability but contended that a much lesser quantity than alleged was affected, and that the Claimants failed properly to segregate and to obtain sufficient bids on the salvage sale. The Court, whilst accepting the Defendants’ evidence on damage extent, rejected the arguments on mitigation, emphasising the high evidential burden of showing unreasonable conduct by a claimant. It also allowed the CIF price as the comparator but disallowed the additional expenses.

The Claimant sued the Defendant tour operator alleging that he fell ill due to contaminated food. He relied on expert evidence which the Defendant did not contest, failing to produce its own expert evidence or to cross examine the Claimant’s expert. The trial judge dismissed the claim on the basis of deficiencies in the expert’s report raised by the Defendant. The High Court overturned this decision; the CA restored it, finding that a court was entitled to rely on its own assessment that a report was unsatisfactory even if uncontroverted; the Supreme Court overturned the CA, ruling that the trial judge’s decision to reject expert evidence which had neither been contested nor subjected to cross-examination rendered the trial unfair. There were limited exceptions, though – e.g. where expert evidence is manifestly incredible or contain an obvious absurdity or mistake on the face of a report.

A T/C provided that Charterers were to redeliver the Vessel with “about” the same quantities of bunkers as on delivery and “should…difference….exceed 5%, Charterers shall compensate Owners losses …”.Charterers redelivered with some 13% less FO and 50% less MGO than on delivery.  The Owners claimed as damages the market rates for the entire shortfalls, contending that the 5% allowance was not applicable if exceeded. The Tribunal held that within 5% gave rise to no breach and only awarded damages for the net shortfalls.