In relation to issues over whether certain payments had been made, the Claimants sought an order that a collection of some 6,000 of the Defendants’ documents, already manually searched, should now be subjected to “TAR” (technology-assisted review) to ascertain further discloseability. The Judge ruled that, bearing in mind limitations to the TAR system, an order was not justified in relation to documents already subjected to a disclosure exercise, adding that the situation might be different had a new source of documentation been identified.

Disputes arose under a NYPE T/C providing for “BOR [bunkers on redelivery] to be same as actually on board on delivery”. Finding that the required LSFO was unavailable at the redelivery port, Charterers proposed to replenish with LSMGO instead, which Owners declined quoting technical concerns. The Tribunal upheld Owners’ right to damages, Charterers bearing the risk of LSFO unavailability at the final discharge port. Nor did Owners’ duty to mitigate extend to accepting the non-contractual performance tendered. Damages were based on the shortfall amount, at LSFO prices encountered on the next employment, plus the additional cost of LSMGO necessarily consumed in reaching it.

In the context of an arbitration relating a claim under a film-production policy, the insurer applied to Court for the removal of the sole arbitrator on the ground of apparent bias due to his knowledge of and attitude towards the insured's factual and expert witnesses and some remarks that he did not intend hear the insured’s expert witnesses because he knew them “all personally extremely well” as "exceptional people in their fields". The judge found no actual or apparent bias based purely on his past industry relationship with the witnesses. Nevertheless, the arbitrator was removed because the suggestion that it was unnecessary to cross-examine the insured’s expert witnesses was plainly not an expression of a balanced and impartial view as it gave rise to an apprehension that he had pre-determined favourable views, thereby pre-judging the merits of the dispute.

In the context of an arbitration relating a claim under a film-production policy, the insurer applied to Court for the removal of the sole arbitrator on the ground of apparent bias due to his knowledge of and attitude towards the insured's factual and expert witnesses and some remarks that he did not intend hear the insured’s expert witnesses because he knew them “all personally extremely well” as "exceptional people in their fields". The judge found no actual or apparent bias based purely on his past industry relationship with the witnesses. Nevertheless, the arbitrator was removed because the suggestion that it was unnecessary to cross-examine the insured’s expert witnesses was plainly not an expression of a balanced and impartial view as it gave rise to an apprehension that he had pre-determined favourable views, thereby pre-judging the merits of the dispute.

A Voyage C/P provided that loading laytime was to cease from 1700 hours before until 0800 after a “public holiday”. Owners disputed the interruption of laytime at Paranagua for the “Corpus Christi” holiday on the grounds that it did not appear in the BIMCO calendar. The Tribunal found that the BIMCO calendar was not definitive on the point and accepted instead Charterers’ evidence (from the Brazilian Embassy in London website) that Corpus Christi was one of the public holidays observed throughout Brazil.

The parties conducted negotiations for a 4 year T/C, culminating in a Recap, containing ‘subs’ and references to further terms to be agreed; further terms were advanced by Trafigura, commented on by Owners (“Owners’ last”) and countered by Trafigura. Following Owners’ silence and Trafigura’s chasers, the latter purported to accept “Owners’ last” and advised that they lifted all ‘subs’ and were fully fixed. Granting summary judgment to Owners, the Court held: the ‘subs’ and further terms TBA precluded the Recap being a concluded contract; “Owners’ last” was not capable of acceptance (and had been rejected) and Trafigura’s subsequent conduct was of no contractual effect. There was no concluded C/P.