The recent Court of Appeal decision in Smit Salvage BV & Ors v Luster Maritime SA & Anr (The ‘Ever Given’), illustrates the challenges of negotiating contracts in rapidly changing environments, particularly within the maritime domain.
Continue Reading The Ever Given Court of Appeal decision unveils contractual complexities in salvage agreements 

The global shipping industry is the backbone of international trade. This article explores areas in which legal strategies can help the shipping industry meet supply chain risks
Continue Reading Navigating Storms: Some legal strategies for contingency planning in shipping supply chains

In Shipowners’ Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association (Luxembourg) -v- Containerships Denizcilik Nakliyat ve Ticaret AS (The “Yusuf Cepnioglu”) [2016] EWCA Civ. 386, the Court of Appeal considered the juridical nature of a foreign statute which gives a victim (in this case, a charterer) the right to sue a defendant’s insurer (in this case, an owners’ club) directly without first suing the insured, and in the circumstances of the case, whether it was appropriate to uphold an anti-suit injunction (“ASI”) which had been made by the court below.

Reliance was placed on the previous decisions dealing with similar foreign legislation, such as The “Hari Bhum” (No. 1) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 206; and [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 67, which considered the provisions of the Finnish Insurance Contract Act 1994 and The “Prestige” (No. 2) [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 309 and [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 33 concerning the Spanish Penal Code.

In this case, the Court was looking at Turkish law, which provided, amongst other things, that “Article 1478 – the victim may claim its loss up to the insured sum directly from the insurer provided that the claim is brought within the prescription period to the insurance contract”.Continue Reading Direct claims against insurers and anti-suit injunctions

In Sea Glory Maritime Co v Al Sagr National Insurance Co (The Nancy) [2013] EWHC 2116 (Comm), the First Claimant (the vessel’s registered owner) and Second Claimant (a party representing itself as the vessel’s commercial and technical manager) sought an indemnity under a policy of marine insurance taken out with the Defendant.



Tribunal considers whether Owners additional insurance against piracy risks was “necessary”

Owners’ additional insurance against piracy found not “necessary” and additional premiums unrecoverable

London Arbitration 4/13

The Tribunal considered whether it was “necessary” for Owners to take out additional insurance against piracy risks. The Tribunal adopted an objective approach towards the meaning of the word,

In Amlin Corporate Member Ltd v Oriental Assurance Corp (“The Princess of the Stars”) [2012] EWCA Civ 1341, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision to refuse a stay of English proceedings brought by reinsurers pending the outcome of proceedings against the insurers in the Philippines.

Owners of cargo which had been