“Following a fire on board a laden tanker (possibly started deliberately by the Chief Engineer), cargo owners Glencore sought recovery from shipowners for their proportion of salvage (and costs) and challenged shipowners' entitlement to GA contribution. The Court ruled on preliminary issues as to barratry and Article IV r2(b) (fire) and (q) (other cause) of the Hague Visby Rules. Barratry required a deliberate and wrongful act prejudicing owners or cargo; the wrongful element must involve something generally recognised as a crime or a deliberate or reckless breach of duty to shipowners; if therefore the C/E was suffering from a clinical mental disorder, the act would not be barratrous. However, Art IV r2(b) can still apply to a deliberately started or barratrous fire, although not r2(q).”

“In interpreting the meaning of the word "act" in clause 8(d) of the ICA (apportionment of liability on a 50-50% basis unless the claim arose out of the act or neglect of one of the parties), the Court of Appeal held that clause 8 is concerned with causation rather than culpability. The critical question is: does the claim "in fact" arise out of the act, operation or state of affairs described? It does not depend upon legal or moral culpability. In the present case, prolonged stay at anchor damaged the cargo and Charterers had to share liability irrespective of whether ordering the vessel to wait at anchor was culpable or not.”

“The owners of a tanker were refused contribution to general average of some USD 2.1 million as the engine breakdown suffered was considered to be the result of an actionable fault in failing to make the vessel seaworthy. The failure of a crankshaft main bearing was caused by a damaged filter failing to remove harmful particles from the lub oil. Deflection readings had earlier indicated that something was wrong, but they were ignored.”

“More than 7 years after delivery, the buyer of a consignment of gasoil filed a complaint in Nigeria, alleging that it was "off-spec". The sale contract was subject to English law and jurisdiction and the seller sought a declaration of non-liability from the English Commercial Court, on a summary basis. The Court rejected the buyer's argument that the claim for a declaration was time-barred, ruling that there is no accrual date for a claim that a person has not broken a contract. The Court also noted that to hold otherwise would strip the seller of protection against an otherwise time-barred claim being pursued in a non-contractual jurisdiction.”

“The repayment of a loan is often accompanied by an increase in the amount repaid, "called interest by those who think it lawful and usury by those who do not". The English Court found that an agreement governed by English Law remained valid even though it would offend against the principles of Shari'a law in the country where it was to be performed.”

“The first Glencore knew of an arbitration claim against it was when it received the Tribunal's Award. The Commercial Court set aside the Award, finding that neither the arbitration notice nor subsequent documentation had been effectively served upon Glencore. All notices and documents had been served by email to a junior employee who had some involvement in operational post-fixture matters, but no involvement in the handling of the dispute and no actual or ostensible authority to accept service of proceedings. Mr Justice Popplewell noted that whilst service by email is capable of being an "effective means" within the meaning of s.76(3) of the Arbitration Act, there is no principle that service by email should be available in most cases; service on a particular individual in a particular case may not be effective.”