Following an initial award of unpaid hire to Owners, the Tribunal ordered Charterers to secure, in the sum of GBP 270,000, Owners’ costs of defending counterclaims, by means of 1^st class bank guarantee issued in England. Following requests for variation, the sum was ordered to be deposited with Owners’ solicitors, to be held on escrow terms. Charterers’ solicitors were thereupon dis-instructed, and following a peremptory order served at Charterers’ registered office (and other addresses) remained unsatisfied, the Tribunal, pursuant to s.41(6) of the Act, dismissed Charterers’ counterclaims, directing that Charterers bear their own costs relating to them.

Sellers of a Cape-size bulk carrier failed to serve timely NOR (not having made reasonable arrangements to disembark crew). Buyers lawfully cancelled. Based on Clause 14 of the NSF 2012  form MOA, providing “due compensation” for loss and expense if the failure is due to “proven negligence”, the Tribunal awarded loss of bargain damages to Buyers. On appeal, the Court ruled that in the absence (as here) of a repudiatory breach, no such damages are recoverable.

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.