The State of Venezuela started proceedings in Curacao and Venezuela against the owners and insurers of a cruise liner which collided with a Venezuelan navy vessel in breach of the London arbitration clauses in the insurance contract. The insurers were granted an interim anti-suit injunction by the High Court but Venezuela objected enforcement immunity. The CA upheld the first instance judgment that refused to grant the insurers a permanent anti-suit injunction because (i) relief cannot be given against a State by way of injunction pursuant to sec. 13(2)(a) of the SIA 1978 and (ii) such rule pursues legitimate domestic objectives by proportionate means, and does not impair the essence of Article 6(1) of the ECHR protecting the universal right to a fair and public hearing. The limitation to the ECHR right was justified by the UK’s domestic policy consistent with international sensitivity and comity.

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.