Knowledge Counsel London
"If it were otherwise, a charterer could never know the extent of its liability without investigating what the owner had arranged for the future use of the vessel…"
Maritime
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the owner of a chartered vessel can recover substantial damages if the vessel is redelivered late, even if it would not have chartered the vessel out again if it had been redelivered on time. The owners of the ‘SKYROS’ and ‘AGIOS MINAS’ were able to recover damages calculated on the basis of the difference between the charter rate and the market rate (which was higher) for overrun periods of two and seven days respectively. The owners had already agreed to sell vessels and it was a term of the MOAs that they would not enter into further charters before delivering the vessels to the buyers, so could not have chartered the vessels out. The Court of Appeal overturned the lower court decision and held that the entitlement to damages for late redelivery was not dependent on whether owners would in fact have further chartered the vessel out. What owners would or could have done with the vessel after redelivery was a collateral matter that would not be taken account of in assessing damages. This ensured certainty in commercial dealings.
Skyros Maritime Corporation and another v Hapag-Lloyd AG [2025] EWCA Civ 1529, 28 November 2025
Judicial review – Human rights
An investment group that had been ordered for reasons of national security to divest itself of its shareholding in a broadband company with links to Russia has unsuccessfully challenged that decision. The basis for the challenge was an interference in its rights to protection of property under protocol 1, article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It claimed that it was not able to achieve a fair market price where buyers knew that it was a forced sale and that it should receive compensation. The court concluded that the measures taken were proportionate to the risk in question. The group had arranged an open market sale of the shares and was able to choose the buyer. Proportionality did not require that they obtain full market value.
Aviation
Following termination of leases of two aircraft, the owners have obtained summary judgment on certain claims for payment arrears, including rent and expenses. The court rejected arguments that the claims were not sufficiently quantified and particularised. The defendant airline had several months to scrutinise the evidence and has not raised any specific points. A further suggestion that the assignment of claims might only take place in equity was not sufficient reason to refuse summary judgment. The court also refused to grant the defendant relief from sanctions for filing evidence late as the breach was serious and there was no good reason given. Further, the defendant was not entitled to set off its security deposit against the sums owing.
MSN 1364 Leasing Ltd and another v Big Charter Pvt Ltd [2025] EWHC 3154 (Comm), 3 December 2025
Arbitration
The purchaser of a yacht allowed the seller to use the yacht for 61 days after the sale without payment of a hire charge. The yacht generator broke down, cutting short the seller’s use period. In response to the seller’s claim, the buyer asserted that there should be an implied term that the buyer’s obligations to ensure that the yacht was seaworthy were subject to an implied term that the seller had properly maintained the hull and machinery. Although a majority tribunal concluded that the term should be implied, the Commercial Court allowed the appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The court held that the allocation of risk in the contract was clear and there was no room to imply a term as it was not required for business efficacy of the contract.
Pleon Ltd v Leonis Yachting Ltd (“The Maltese Falcon”) [2025] EWHC 3144 (Comm), 28 November 2025
Key contacts
Knowledge Counsel London
Partner London
