Lloyd's Maritime Law Newsletter

Contract – Lay-up facility – Respondent’s vessels laid up at claimant’s facility – Respondent failing to pay lay-up fees and other costs – Claimant terminating agreement – Respondent failing to remove vessels from facility as required by agreement – Quantum of fees and costs payable to claimant – Meaning of expression “costs and expenses” – Whether respondent entitled to damages for breach of London arbitration agreement – Whether order should be made for removal of vessels from facility

Charterparty – Anticipatory breach – Damages – Time-charterers redelivering vessel early – Whether owners bound to give credit for value of vessel sold on repudiation for greater sum than value of vessel at contractual date of redelivery

Admiralty jurisdiction – Meaning of “damage done by a ship” – Plaintiff claiming for loss of containers onboard capsized vessel – Whether court had in rem jurisdiction

Collision action - Claimants' container vessel colliding with Indian warship in entrance to port of Mumbai - Claimants bringing proceedings in England against another container vessel contending that collision caused by negligence of defendant vessel and three Indian warships - Union of India not party to English proceedings - Whether court could apportion liability between all vessels at fault

Saleof goods - Sale of maize fob - Buyers having express right to nominate substitute vessel - Buyers nominating substitute vessel but giving less than required notice - Whether nomination valid - Whether buyers in repudiatory breach of contract

Arbitration – Interlocutory order – Whether court should order sale of cargo of steam coal in aid of arbitration