In Unicious Energy Pte Ltd v The Owners of the ‘Alpine Mathilde’ [2023] MLJU 2819, the High Court set aside a vessel arrest brought solely to secure arbitration claims, holding it was an abuse of admiralty jurisdiction. The Plaintiff, an OFAC-designated SDN, had no valid claim due to U.S. sanctions, and the Court ruled that arrest for arbitration must strictly comply with section 11(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act 2005. This case reinforces the limits of in rem jurisdiction and the enforceability of sanctions clauses in cross-border charterparty disputes.

In Marchand Navigation Co v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92, the Singapore High Court upheld the owners’ right to enforce a lien on sub-freights under Clause 18 of the NYPE 1946 charterparty, ruling that the phrase ‘any amounts due under this charter’ was broad enough to cover unpaid bunker costs. Despite an arbitration clause between the owners and charterers, the sub-charterer was obligated to honor the lien, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement. This decision reinforces that a properly exercised lien on sub-freights can be an effective tool for owners to recover unpaid sums, even in the presence of disputes between charterers and sub-charterers.

In “The Lila Lisbon” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 101, the court ruled that a buyer cancelling under Clause 14 of the Norwegian Salesform Memorandum of Agreement is not automatically entitled to loss of bargain damages unless the seller is in repudiatory breach. The case clarifies that failing to deliver by the cancellation date does not constitute non-delivery under the English Sale of Goods Act 1979, as the clause grants the buyer a discretionary right rather than imposing a firm obligation on the seller. This decision highlights the importance of precise contract drafting, particularly in ship sale agreements, where buyers must ensure that compensation for market loss is explicitly provided for.