Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 22519 November 2024

Maritime
The Supreme Court has concluded that the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules one year time bar does apply to a claim for misdelivery that occurred after the cargo was discharged from the ship. A cargo of coal had been discharged into stockpiles and was then allegedly misdelivered without production of the original bills of lading. The ordinary meaning of the words of the time bar clause indicated that it was intended to apply widely. There is a distinction in the rules as to discharge and delivery and article III, rule 6 deals with a number of issues that occur at delivery and after discharge. Time bars ensure finality, which would not be achieved where some but not all claims were covered. Although the period of responsibility for the cargo under the rules is from loading to discharge, the rules nonetheless regulate events occurring outside that period, but related to the carriage of the goods. As the time bar applied, the claim had been brought out of time.
Fimbank Plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd [2024] UKSC 38, 13 November 2024

Sanctions – Maritime
The Commercial Court has ordered the sale of a cargo of naphtha belonging to sanctioned charterers that has been on board a ship drifting in the South China Sea for 20 months. It also provided that the proceeds of the sale can be paid into court. The shipowners had opposed the payment of the proceeds into court due to concerns about breaching US sanctions. The court considered that where the proceeds were paid into court following an order of the court, the likelihood of a criminal prosecution was low. The shipowners had done all they could to comply with the US sanctions by refusing to deliver the cargo to the charterers and any payment into court was to preserve the proceeds pending the outcome of the arbitration, rather than avoid the effect of US sanctions.
O v C [2024] EWHC 2838 (Comm), 8 November 2024

Damages
Motorola obtained a US judgment against Hytera that awarded it a judgment for multiple damages (where the amount is double or triple the amount of compensatory damages). Such judgments are not enforceable in England and Wales due to the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980. In this judgment, the Commercial Court held that the restriction on enforcement also applied to awards of interest, fees and costs that related to such judgments. As a result, the claim for enforcement failed.
Motorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2024] EWHC 2891 (Comm), 14 November 2024

Insurance – Contribution
The Chancery Court has concluded that a professional indemnity insurer of an insolvent insured should not be treated at law as being liable in respect of the same damage as the insured. As a result, the insurer who was potentially liable to the client of the insured property valuers under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010, could not join the claimant’s solicitors to the proceedings under section 1 of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 to pursue a claim for contribution against them. The insurer’s liability arose under the insurance policy, whereas the solicitors were liable for breach of duty and causing financial loss. The two parties are therefore not liable for the same loss (but note that this does not affect any subrogation rights that the insurers may acquire).
Riedweg v HCC International PLC [2024] EWHC 2805 (Ch), 11 November 2024

Should you wish to discuss any of these cases in further detail, please speak with a member of our London dispute resolution team below, or your regular contact at Watson Farley & Williams: