Mercuria bought a cargo of high-sulphur straight-run fuel oil from Onex on CIF terms, incorporating the BP General Terms. After discharge, part of the cargo was found to contain elevated organic chlorides. Mercuria claimed breach, arguing that the contractual term “typicals” created a quality warranty and that the cargo no longer met the contractual description. The Court rejected those arguments, holding that “typicals” were descriptive only and not contractual guarantees, and that organic chlorides were not part of the agreed specifications. The cargo retained its commercial identity. The buyer’s claim was dismissed.

Read the full judgment here.

Trafigura PTE Ltd & another sued Prateek Gupta and others in the Commercial Court, alleging a multi-hundred-million-dollar fraud in nickel trading, where high-grade LME-grade nickel was purportedly sold but worthless material delivered instead. After a month-long trial, the Court found in favour of Trafigura, holding Gupta and the corporate defendants liable for the fraud and rejecting their defences. The judgment recognised that Trafigura was induced into contracts by false and fraudulent representations and awarded a decisive victory for the commodities trader. Trafigura succeeded and the defendants were found liable for fraudulent misrepresentation.

Read the full judgment here.

The charterers claimed overpaid hire under a time charter, alleging underperformance, while the owners denied liability and counterclaimed. The tribunal determined preliminary issues concerning weather evidence and performance warranties. It held that weather should be assessed by deck logs unless the charterers proved a consistent discrepancy, and that the burden of proof lay on them. Of two competing definitions, the tribunal found that the narrower “good weather” definition applied. The performance warranty was not continuing but applied only at the date of the charter. Positive currents were not to be discounted.

Read the full judgment here.

Moeve sold gasoline and gasoil to Mael on FOB Algeciras terms, with payment due 60 days after shipment under confirmed letters of credit (LCs). The cargo was shipped and discharged, but the issuing bank refused payment. Moeve sued for the price under S.49 Sale of Goods Act 1979. The Buyer argued that arranging the LCs discharged its payment obligation and raised a counterclaim for demurrage and delay. The Court rejected those arguments, holding that title had passed, the Buyer had received the cargo, the LCs were not payment, and the counterclaim was time-barred and excluded. The Seller obtained summary judgment, and the Court refused the Buyer’s application for a stay of execution.

Read the full judgment here.

Charterers claimed off-hire and a deduction from hire under a time charter trip, alleging that hull fouling on delivery reduced the vessel’s speed and performance and citing The Divinegate. Owners resisted the claim, arguing that the performance warranty was not engaged because there was insufficient “good weather” data within the meaning of the charterparty, and that The Divinegate was irrelevant. The Tribunal held that underwater fouling constituted a defect in the hull capable of engaging the off-hire clause and that Charterers were entitled to a deduction from hire, notwithstanding the lack of qualifying good-weather period under the performance clause. The performance-evidence regime did not prevent recovery where loss of speed was otherwise established.

Read the full judgment here.

The laden “Happy Aras” grounded off Turkey causing damage to ship and cargo. A subsequent GA Adjustment found cargo’s contribution to be some USD1.2m, which Owners sought from the Defendant Average Guarantors. The Court found that the Master made multiple serious errors on the voyage, removed safety checks and kept misleading records, constituting systemic failings and unseaworthiness. Owners failed to show proper research before assigning command to the Master and could not demonstrate the necessary due diligence in compliance with the B/L and applicable Hague Rules. Consequently their claim under the Average Guarantee failed.

Read the full judgment here.