Palmali claimed some USD120m remuneration under a 10+5 year COA said to have been concluded with Litasco, whereby Palmali would exclusively transport for Litasco, from Russian ports, 400,000 - 700,000 mt monthly of Lukoil refinery products. The Court found the arrangement did not amount to an enforceable COA as it was merely an agreement to agree and of no legal effect. In particular, there was no agreement on rates, the parties did not treat the COA as in place (other contracts covering such transactions as took place) and the arrangement was commercially absurd for both.

Read the full judgment here.

Following a collision between KIVELI and AFINA I in the Stenó Elafonísou Strait, the Court determined that the Vessels were meeting on reciprocal or near reciprocal courses, within the meaning of Rule 14 of the Collision Regulations, requiring both Vessels to alter to starboard. KIVELI's improper port turn, along with breaches of Rules 5,7, and 8 (look out, information collecting/use and avoiding action), and a failure of good seamanship under Rule 2, were significant. Although AFINA I acted in accordance with the Rules, her response was deemed not sufficiently prompt. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that KIVELI's faults were substantially greater in both degree and seriousness, warranting an 80/20 apportionment of liability.

Read the full judgment here.

Following delays due to the crew’s lack of COVID-19 PCR certificates, Charterers claimed the vessel was not “in every way fitted for the service” under the charterparty. Owners argued the recap took precedence and the certificates were not required, citing a carve-out for COVID-19 in the BIMCO disease clause. The Commercial Court ruled in Charterers’ favour, holding that PCR compliance was Owners’ responsibility and the deviation and delay were caused by Owners’ failure to comply with known regulations.

The High Court rejected the Defendant Bank’s attempt to strike out the Claimants’ multi-million GBP fraud claim. The Bank argued the claim was time barred under the Limitation Act, but the Claimants relied on Section 32(1)(a) of the Act alleging deliberate concealment of the fraud which could not reasonably have been discovered earlier. The Court agreed there was a real prospect that the Claimant “could not have discovered the fraud without exceptional measures which it could not reasonably have been expected to take,” and therefore allowed the case to proceed to trial.

A London Arbitration Award ruled that NLNG failed to supply Taleveras with LNG cargoes, causing losses on sub-sales.  The ‘dispositive’ section of  the Award required NLNG to indemnify Taleveras for amounts awarded in sub-sales arbitrations. However, in an ‘analysis’ section, the Award directed that the indemnity was subject to endorsement by the sub-sales tribunals. When Taleveras’ sub-sale liability to Vitol was ascertained at some USD233m, NLNG sought a Court declaration of non-liability, based on the absence of endorsement. The CA upheld the High Court’s refusal, ruling that the Award’s ‘dispositive’ section contained a comprehensive statement of the relief being granted to Taleveras.

In a recent High Court case, MSH Ltd challenged anarbitral award under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, claiming theTribunal lacked jurisdiction since HCS Ltd wasn’t a party to the sale contract. The contract named CTW Ltd as the buyer, but it was later revealed CTW acted asagent for HCS, a trading house. The Court found that HCS, though unnamed, was the true undisclosed principal—evidenced by its provision of the letter of credit — and upheld the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, dismissing the appeal.