Time Charterers redelivered 2 Vessels some days late. Some months earlier, Owners had entered MOAs for the sale of both Vessels. Arbitrators determined a preliminary issue on the assumptions that (i) the T/Crates had risen substantially since conclusion of the fixtures and (ii) Ownerswould not have re-let after timeous redeliveries but simply delivered to Buyers. The Tribunal found in these circumstances that Owners were entitled to “substantial damages, compensation or other monetary relief”. On appeal, the Court disagreed; in the normal course damages would compensate for loss of opportunity to take advantage of the market rate, but here Owners lost no such opportunity because of the MOAs, so only nominal damages were appropriate.

Owners claimed some USD4.9m from Charterers in respect of unpaid hire, bunkers and expenses. Charterers (without any specifics) contended that Owners had issued unauthorised B/Ls, had failed (by discharging the carg0) to enforce Charterers’ lien for unpaid freight (having, they suggested, received payment direct from sub-charterers) and sought USD3.6m damages. Responding to Owners’ application for a partial final award, the Tribunal was only willing to award the difference of USD1.3m, on the basis that if Charterers’ claim were made out, Owners would have deprived them of the use of the Vessel by not retaining the cargo on board.

Immediately after shipment on board O’s Vessel of a cargo of naptha, Charterers (‘C’) became subject to US sanctions. O purportedly terminated the C/P and in Arbitration sought an order for sale of the cargo, with the proceeds payable to a blocked US a/c in accordance with a US license. C opposes the sale and claims damages for conversion of its cargo, O (it says) being outside the reach of US sanctions. C contends that proceeds of sale should be paid into the English Court in support of the arbitration. The Court agreed that given the underlying arbitration, payment to Court was the appropriate option, outweighing O’s concerns about US prosecution, which the Court assessed as very low.

The Supreme Court held that the time bar in Article III Rule 6 of the Hague and Hague Visby Rules applies to claims for misdelivery after discharge and other breaches occurring post-discharge but before delivery. Rejecting arguments limiting the time bar to the “period of responsibility” (loading to discharge), Lord Hamblen confirmed its broader scope, including pre-loading breaches linked to specific goods. This decision resolves a longstanding legal dispute, clarifying the Rules’ application to breaches beyond the traditional “period of responsibility”.

In a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, the BVI Claimant (noted by the Court to be financially challenged) was ordered to provide security for the Defendant’s costs at various stages, 12 days before trial, cleared funds for the last two tranches (totalling almost GBP 1.3m) had still not been paid into Court, nor the trial fee. The High Court allowed a further 6 days for the Claimant to comply, before striking out the claim. The Claimant appealed, citing authority that their uncleared cheque paid into Court within the deadline sufficed. The CA distinguished that case and upheld the High Court ruling of strike out.

In a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, the BVI Claimant (noted by the Court to be financially challenged) was ordered to provide security for the Defendant’s costs at various stages, 12 days before trial, cleared funds for the last two tranches (totalling almost GBP 1.3m) had still not been paid into Court, nor the trial fee. The High Court allowed a further 6 days for the Claimant to comply, before striking out the claim. The Claimant appealed, citing authority that their uncleared cheque paid into Court within the deadline sufficed. The CA distinguished that case and upheld the High Court ruling of strike out.