Charterers under an NYPE T/C, challenged the delivery time specified by Owners, stating that the AIS had been turned off some 442 nm away and the Vessel could not have covered that distance in the intervening period. Owners’ argument that the Vessel speeded up was rejected as the logs produced in support were unconvincing (all in the same hand, allegedly produced from memory without aid of rough logs). Charterers failed however on their performance claim by not meeting a provision requiring their evaluation to be submitted latest 15 days after the passage in question.

The Claimants sold 50,000mt soybeans on CIF terms, carried pursuant to a B/L on the Defendants’ Vessel. The receivers rejected a quantity (comprising sound and allegedly damaged cargo) and later effected a salvage sale of the damaged cargo. The Claimants sought damages being the difference between the CIF price of the rejected quantity and that achieved on the salvage sale, plus inspection, survey, and cargo handling expenses. The Defendants admitted liability but contended that a much lesser quantity than alleged was affected, and that the Claimants failed properly to segregate and to obtain sufficient bids on the salvage sale. The Court, whilst accepting the Defendants’ evidence on damage extent, rejected the arguments on mitigation, emphasising the high evidential burden of showing unreasonable conduct by a claimant. It also allowed the CIF price as the comparator but disallowed the additional expenses.

The Claimant sued the Defendant tour operator alleging that he fell ill due to contaminated food. He relied on expert evidence which the Defendant did not contest, failing to produce its own expert evidence or to cross examine the Claimant’s expert. The trial judge dismissed the claim on the basis of deficiencies in the expert’s report raised by the Defendant. The High Court overturned this decision; the CA restored it, finding that a court was entitled to rely on its own assessment that a report was unsatisfactory even if uncontroverted; the Supreme Court overturned the CA, ruling that the trial judge’s decision to reject expert evidence which had neither been contested nor subjected to cross-examination rendered the trial unfair. There were limited exceptions, though – e.g. where expert evidence is manifestly incredible or contain an obvious absurdity or mistake on the face of a report.

A T/C provided that Charterers were to redeliver the Vessel with “about” the same quantities of bunkers as on delivery and “should…difference….exceed 5%, Charterers shall compensate Owners losses …”.Charterers redelivered with some 13% less FO and 50% less MGO than on delivery.  The Owners claimed as damages the market rates for the entire shortfalls, contending that the 5% allowance was not applicable if exceeded. The Tribunal held that within 5% gave rise to no breach and only awarded damages for the net shortfalls.

Charterers under an Exxonvoy ordered the Vessel to wait at Singapore EOPL. The Master anchored in Indonesian waters, where the Vessel was arrested by the Navy along with the Master and detained for 8 months. The Tribunal rejected both Owners’ and Charterers’ claims, based respectively on ‘safety’ and breach of Exxonvoy Cl.2 (‘Compliance’). Charterers appealed the latter but in view of the Tribunal’s finding that error in navigation caused the Master to anchor where he did, the Court upheld their ruling that Owners were entitled to rely on Art. IV rule 2(a) of the Hague Rules.  Even if such defence was an ‘anachronism’ (as Charterers argued) the parties had nonetheless agreed to its application by US COGSA.

The Court granted Summary Judgment to Litasco (unpaid Sellers of crude oil to the Defendants) in a Є45m claim, pursuant to a debt re-scheduling Agreement. The Court dismissed the Defendant’s various arguments including those under the UK 2019 Russia Sanctions Regulations, and illegality. The Regulations did not apply to the transaction (involving Swiss/Senegalese entities and West African countries) or to any of the ‘persons’ involved (neither Swiss Litasco, nor its Russian parent, Lukoil, was Sanctioned, nor was any individual with a controlling stake; the Defendants failed to prove that President Putin had de facto control of the Claimants; paying the scheduled debt would not make funds available to a Russian person in connection with the export of energy-related goods.