Lloyd's Maritime Law Newsletter

The appellants were charterers of the Nema , which was owned by the respondents. The parties used a standard form C (Ore) 7 as the basis of their agreement, but since this form was designed for use for a single voyage and the parties intended the..

Hitachi had agreed in 1976 to build three vessels for Viafiel. The purchase prices were payable by instalments. In 1977 some of the instalments were not paid and in October Hitachi treated all three contracts as having been repudiated. The dispute..

Hitachi had previously obtained a Mareva injunction against Viafiel, and this was another reason for dismissing the appeal. Hitachi had submitted that the existence of the Mareva injunction was irrelevant to an application for security for costs..

The issues in this case concerned the scope of the “restrictive” doctrine of state immunity. Briefly, this doctrine is that when a sovereign or state is impleaded as a defendant it cannot claim state immunity as regards commercial or..