By exchange of emails, a 20–24-month charter of the Vessel “Green Ace” was agreed between the Claimant Owners and Charterers “to be guaranteed by [Charterers’ parent, the Defendants, AGML]”. No formal C/P or Guarantee was drawn up. 2 days after delivery, Charterers advised “…unable to accept…. vessel on…current charter terms”, which Owners treated (and the Court confirmed) as repudiatory, seeking damages from AGML.  Rejecting AGML’s contentions, the Court found that the words used were sufficient to create an immediate-effect Guarantee on AGML’s part; the exchange of fixture emails by the parties’ authorised representatives satisfied the “writing” and “signed” requirement of the Statute of Frauds; and any mistake on Charterers’ part as to the Guarantee’s binding nature was not shared by Owners and provided no grounds for recission of the Guarantee.

Following the grounding of “Solomon Trader”, her time-charterers accrued liabilities of some USD47m towards owning interests. Amlin (charterers’ liability insurers), sought to rely on a “pay as may be paid” proviso in the policy to exclude liability to owning interests for liabilities the now-insolvent insured had failed to meet. Upholding the proviso, the Court ruled that, despite its subsidiary nature, it was not inconsistent with the policy’s main purpose, was not transformative of the insurance contract and was no different in essence from equivalent provisos in P&I and Hull policies.

The Claimant provided a financial facility of USD45m to D1 to support its ship-recycling business, secured by a personal guarantee of D2, who, during negotiations leading to the facility, presented a “Statement of Net Worth” of USD46m. D3 (CFO of D1) issued the required “Approved Borrower Statement”, asserting transactional compliance.  Repayments were not made and D2 provided a misleading “Statement of Delays”. The Court found all 3 Statements false and fraudulent, meant to deceive the Claimant, who relied on them. D2 and D3 were held liable for the torts of deceit and accessory liability respectively and Defendants collectively for unlawful means conspiracy, with damages to be assessed.

Under MOAs for the sale of tankers, Buyers failed to place 10% deposits in escrow as required; Sellers terminated the MOAs. Buyers contended that Sellers’ claims were restricted to prove damages (rather than the fixed deposits), relying on a long-standing principle that a condition precedent (here lodging deposits), if unfulfilled, is dispensed with in calculating damages. Allowing Sellers’ appeal, the CA ruled that the principle was one of construction not law and was unavailable to a party failing, in breach, to fulfill the condition precedent. Buyers could not benefit from their own wrong by thwarting the accrual of the deposits.

Sovcombank sought damages in the Russian courts after UK Sanctions prevented Barclays making payments under a financial facility. Supporting the facility's English exclusive jurisdiction clause, the Court granted Barclays not only an anti- suit injunction against Sovcombank but also a rare anti-enforcement injunction to further guard against a Russian judgment.

Following theft of a yacht from a Bahamian marina, her owners/ insurers claimed against the marina in tort (negligence) and under the dock lease agreement. Upholding the Bahamian CA, the PC agreed that the marina had not assumed a responsibility to use reasonable care to guard against theft of the yacht (especially where, as here, the owner retained the keys). Similarly, no contractual duty to prevent the theft arose under the lease, such responsibility lying with the yacht owners.