Lloyd's Maritime Law Newsletter

Prior to 1986 Order 75, rule 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court provided that the Court had a discretion whether or not to order the arrest of property, and the plaintiff had an obligation to make full and frank disclosure of material facts (see..

The plaintiff invoked the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal Court claiming damages for breach of contract and/or duty in and about the manner in which the defendant, S.G.S. Supervision Services Inc., carried out a survey of holds of the vessel..

The vessel was fixed on an amended N.Y.P.E. charter for a time-charter trip. By clauses 5 and 43 hire was to be paid semi-monthly in advance. The ship delivered into the charter at 14 00 on 5 October. On 6 October the owners invoiced the charterers..

Another point in issue in the previous arbitration was the exercise by the owners of a lien at the discharging port. Discharging commenced on 29 November. On 12 December, hire being again outstanding, the owners telexed the charterers threatening to..