The Defendant Sellers sent a single Notice of Arbitration, for disputes arising from two separate FOB contracts containing identical arbitration clauses (GAFTA Rule 125), in which Sellers also questioned if the Claimant Buyers would “accept the two contracts/disputes be adjudicated under a single arbitration”. The Buyers subsequently challenged GAFTA’s award for lack of jurisdiction, disputing the single Notice was valid commencement of two arbitrations. The Court held it was because the Notice identified both disputes, s.14 AA should be interpreted “broadly and flexibly” with substance over form, and a reasonable reading of Sellers’ question showed an intention to commence both.

The Respondent Receivers of cargo on board the unmanned Stema Barge II sought to limit their liability to RTE, owners of an underwater cable, damaged when the barge dragged anchor during a storm off Dover. The Receivers relied on their personnel’s operation of the barge’s machinery as rendering them “manager or operator”, entitling them to limit under Art.1(2) of the Limitation Convention. Reversing Teare J, the CA held the term “operator” must “entail more than mere operation of machinery” or provision of crew and a higher level of operation involving “management or control” was required for Receivers to avail themselves of the limitation. The appeal was allowed.

The Claimant, a mine operator in the DRC, challenged the ICC Tribunal’s award under s.68 claiming serious irregularity by reason of, inter alia, failure to adjourn for a site visit and/or illness of their lead counsel (both linked to Covid 19), and the award of 9% interest compounded monthly. The appeal was dismissed. The Claimant had a highly experienced legal team, had 4½ weeks to replace counsel, and, although, experts differed on the necessity of a site visit, the Tribunal had correctly exercised its discretion. Interest was set at the Defendant’s borrowing cost, and the Claimant failed to show that cross-examination of the Defendant’s CFO would have resulted in a different outcome.

The M.T. “Polar” laden with cargo pursuant to a voyage charter, was seized by pirates in the Gulf of Aden until a ransom was paid on behalf of Owners. The C/P, which was incorporated into the B/Ls, contained a “Gulf of Aden” clause making charterers liable for additional war risk premiums (‘awrp’). Resisting Owners’ claim for GA contribution, the defendant Cargo Interests argued that the effect of the “Gulf of Aden” Clause on the B/L was that Owners could look only to their insurers and not Cargo Interests for recovery of the ransom. The CA upheld the High Court, ruling that although the clause was incorporated into the B/Ls for other purposes, it did not make Cargo Interests liable for awrp and could not therefore have the effect of contended for, so as to excuse them from GA contribution.

Cargo was delivered without B/Ls, against LOIs from Voyage Charterers Aeturnum and Time Charterers Navig8. ING bank, claiming to be holders, arrested the Vessel and sought damages of USD8.5m from head owners. Aeturnum failed to take steps and Navig8 placed security to release the Vessel. The Court held that cargo was delivered in accordance with Aeturnum’s instructions, engaging their LOI to Navig8, which was breached (alleged impecuniosity being neither made out nor an excuse). It ordered specific performance (requiring Navig8’s security to be replaced) and damages for Navig8’s loss of use during arrest, Navig8’s further losses being stood over pending ING’s judgment in Singapore.

Owners claimed that Charterers’ failure to discharge within laytime, gave rise not only to demurrage but also a cargo deterioration claim against Owners by Receivers. The CA, reversing Baker J’s decision, held that demurrage was Owners’ sole remedy – it “liquidates the whole of the damages arising from… failing to complete cargo operations within the laytime”. Breach of a separate obligation was required to claim additional damages for delay and as Owners failed to plead it, recovery of such damages was precluded.