Following a fire on m/y "Big Kahuna" spreading to other vessels in a Corfu marina and sinking some, including the 1929 wooden ketch "Halcyon”, the English insurers and Owners of the former commenced Limitation proceedings in the English Court. "Halcyon" subsequently sought damages in the Greek Courts (where Limitation was 3x higher) and applied to stay the English action. Declining, the Court ruled that there was no question of the (English interests) "Big Kahuna" 'forum shopping' and no reason why Limitation and underlying claim could not be tried in separate jurisdictions.

Following the sinking of the “X-Press Pearl” and the issue of English Limitation proceedings, the Defendant cargo claimants commenced proceedings in Sri Lanka, directly against the Vessel’s Club “as insurer”. The Club commenced London Arbitration (the forum specified by its Rules) against cargo claimants, seeking a declaration of non-liability; it also sought an anti-suit injunction. The Court ascertained that the claims were asserted under the insurance contract (rather than under any independent rights) so that the Rules, including “pay to be paid” applied, and granted the Club the injunction sought.

Following a collision off Ireland between the laden, 620,000 GRT bulk carrier “Hua Sheng Hai” and the 320 GRT fishing vessel “Kirrixki”, the Irish Court found that “Kirrixki” failed to keep a (or any) look out; she was not (as claimed) lowering nets but slow-steaming to new waters, then suddenly changed course and accelerated just prior to the collision. She was not the stand-on vessel, but in any event was in breach of Colregs for not holding her course and speed, and was the major cause of the collision. “Hua Sheng Hai” whilst not required to change course, nevertheless failed to take timely action to avoid unexpected and sudden danger. Liability was set at 85% “Kirrixki” 15% “Hua Sheng Hai”.

The Borrowers defaulted under a ship finance loan. Two vessels subject to the loan were arrested by other creditors and judicially sold by a port authority. Although joining in the arrests, the Claimant Lenders were initially unaware of the judicial sale of the vessels (for scrap) and received no proceeds. Granting the Lenders’ summary judgment application for the full outstanding loan amounts, the Court ruled that the Lenders were not in breach of their equitable duties: they had merely joined in arrest of the vessels and had done so in good faith; they had never taken possession of them, nor arranged their sale, indeed had no knowledge or control of the sale effected. The Lenders could not be expected to pay off all other creditors in order to move the Vessel elsewhere where better prices might be obtained, nor to seek recovery from the port authority.

The CA dismissed the defendant Owners’ challenge to the Admiralty Court’s ruling that the claimant Salvors were entitled to remuneration pursuant to the Salvage Convention or common law (i.e. limited only by Vessel salved value). Upholding the findings of the Court below, the CA agreed that Owners had failed to discharge their burden of demonstrating, by way of the exchanges with Salvors, an unequivocal intention to enter a binding, fixed remuneration agreement instead. Nor could it be said, in the circumstances, that when urgent negotiations subsided, this evidenced that both parties considered a binding agreement concluded.

The Vessel “Win Win” intending to anchor at EOPL Singapore in February 2019, was within Indonesian territorial waters and was arrested by their Navy (shortly after an anchoring rule change). The Vessel was detained for 18 months and the Master imprisoned. The Defendant war risk insurers contested liability under the Policy, arguing that (i) insured Owners knew/ should have known of the risk, thus the loss was voluntary (ii) the arrest was akin to a customs/ quarantine one and excluded by the Policy (iii) Owners failed in their ‘sue and labour’ duty, including engaging in futile negotiations with Indonesia, thus causing the loss. Each argument failed as did the Defendants’ attempt to avoid the policy for non-disclosure of (unrelated) Greek criminal charges against Owners’ director, held to have had no relevance or bearing on acceptance of the risk.