On a voyage charter on an ANVOY (amended Synacomex 90) form for the carriage of wheat from Russia to Brazil, charterers denied liability for demurrage and filed a counterclaim for despatch. The dispute arose due to delays at the loading port, where a phytosanitary certificate was delayed due to weather and document issues. Owners claimed that charterers had a 3-hour grace period to provide the documents once loading was completed on Saturday 29th October 2022, after which time counted. The charterers argued that laytime could not begin until 08:00 on October 31st as weekends were excluded and the 3 hours’ grace could only start after the bills of lading were signed. The Tribunal ruled for the owners, confirming that time lost after loading completion counted as if it were laytime, regardless of weekends, awarding the owners their full claim for demurrage plus interest and costs.

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.

The Claimant as seller of a quantity of orange pulp ‘wash’ sought payment of the contract price and damages for the Defendant buyer’s refusal to take delivery. However, although the contract referred to a quantity of 3,600mt/1200mt per year over a 3-year period, a contract price was only specified for the first 400mt. The Court found that there was no more than an unenforceable ‘agreement to agree’ as regards the remaining quantity/price and that the buyer was entitled to refuse delivery of, and payment for, the first year’s remaining 800mt. For the same reason, the Claimant seller (having terminated the contract) was not entitled to damages for a repudiatory breach by the buyer.

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.