The Claimant purchased three copper consignments carried by Maersk fromDubai in containers under clean, straight-consigned bills of lading (B/Ls).Upon arrival in Piraeus, the containers were found to contain concrete blocks,weighing less than 50% of the expected amount and of no value. With theshippers having vanished, the Claimants contended that Maersk should havesuspected an issue and claused the B/Ls. However, the Court ruled that Maerskhad no reasonable means to verify the contents, absolving it of liability underHague Rules Art. III r.3(c) and for negligent misstatement (of unawareness). Nospecial duty of care applied (which might arise under a straight-consignedbill), as the carrier had no reason to suspect fraud.

Claimant “Christos Theo” claimed for damage sustained in agrounding following a ‘near miss’ with Defendant “Aliki”. Followingexchange of pleadings in which “Aliki” alleged and, in the Court’s view,demonstrated, a prima facie case that the “Christos Theo” main enginemalfunctioned, preventing it from being put astern, the Defendant applied forspecific disclosure of material capturing the incident and also as to priorproblems/ failings with the main engine.  The Court found the Claimants’assertion that searches revealed no such material “defies belief” andexplanations were demonstrably wrong or incomplete. An Order was made forsearches by the Claimant for numerous items of disclosure, supported ifnecessary by verification statement. The Court directed that the Claimant payall costs of the application, ordering an interim payment of GBP70,000.

Owners delivered cargoes without production of B/Ls against D1’s (charterers’) LOIs (in Club-recommended form, with an exclusive English jurisdiction clause). D1 became insolvent and Owners’ claims for indemnification under the LOIs were directed to D2 (B/L shippers) and Ds 3-5 (other “Exporters”). Setting aside service of the Claim, the Court ruled that D2 was not D1’s undisclosed principal, nor had D2 authorised issue of LOIs on behalf of Ds 3-5, thus there was no English Jurisdiction clause between Owners and anyone other than insolvent D1.

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.