AASTAR supplied rice to ADC under a series of 2021/22 contracts providing for GAFTA Arbitration; in July 2023, claiming sums contractually due, AASTAR sent notices of arbitration to generic email addresses for ADC.  In the absence of response from ADC, GAFTA appointed an Arbitrator who issued an Award in February 2024 awarding AASTAR most of its claim. In August 2024 (long after the Arbitration Act’s 28 day period) ADC alleged non-service of the notices and sought to challenge the Award under ss. 67 and 68 (procedural irregularity/breach of arbitration rules) and an extension of time to do so. The Court declined the extension as the contracts had not ruled out email service. Instead, it permitted a limited Application under s72, which contains no time limit and preserves ss. 67 and 68 rights for alleged parties who have taken no part in the Arbitration; the Application to be based upon the report of a single forensic IT expert.

Read the full judgment here.

On expiry of a 3 year bareboat C/P, Owners (Savory) were obliged to transfer title of the Vessel to Charterers (Ceto) if the latter had “paid all… sums due under this Charter and… under … [a] Management Agreement with [a 3rd party].” Despite earlier termination of the Management Agreement, sums remained due under it at the end of the C/P. The Court upheld Savory’s refusal to transfer title, ruling that the right was available only at the precise expiry of the C/P term and even later payment by Ceto of the sums would not revive the transfer obligation.

Read the full judgment here.

Under a sub-T/C for a trip to Persian Gulf, intention Iraq, with grain in bulk, the Vessel waited some 2.5 days off the discharge port, on upstream owners’ instructions, the latter having received (just 5 hours’ steaming away) a notice from Shippers/Sellers that that they had not been paid for the cargo (worth some USD16.8m). Dismissing Charterers’ off-hire claim, the Tribunal found that any shipowner could be expected to pause for thought and obtain advice, especially given the value of the cargo, the lateness of the notice and an intervening weekend.

Read the full judgment here.

Four Vessels were chartered by a single Shelltime C/P providing for English law and jurisdiction. Disputes arose, and the Claimant Charterers issued proceedings against Middle Volga (Russian registered owners) and North Global. The Court upheld Middle Volga’s challenge to jurisdiction, finding that neither the Recap nor the drawn-up (but unsigned) C/P evidenced a contract with them; the Recap merely referred to the Q88, which in turn identified others as registered owners and North Global as disponent owners.  Further, a C/P declaration that “Owners” had no connection with Russia made it clear that North Global rather than Middle Volga were intended to be the contracting party.

Read the full judgment here.

Having been held liable by a PRC Court for damage to a cargo (suffering from inherent vice) the Respondent Owners sought an indemnity from the Claimant Time Charterers both under the ICA and the implied indemnity arising out of NYPE Clause 8. The Tribunal allowed the latter. Dismissing Charterers’ appeal, the Court confirmed that the implied indemnity was engaged, and that there was no special rule for inherent vice, which was not an ordinary trading risk for which Owners were remunerated by hire.

Read the full judgment here.

A&N Seaways challenged an arbitration award which upheld Owners’ withdrawal of the MV Bharadwaj for non-payment of hire, despite Charterers’ “interim response” alleging the C/P was procured by fraud. The Court dismissed Charterers’ argument that the C/P was a nullity and that no valid arbitration agreement existed, refusing late attempts to plead fraud as out of time and inadequately particularised, and holding the claim had no real prospect of success.

Read the full judgment here.