In maritime charterparty agreements, fouling clauses outline who is responsible for the costs and time associated with hull cleaning when marine organisms accumulate due to specific operating conditions. These clauses are crucial for clarifying liabilities, particularly when charterers operate in warm, bio-rich waters or leave vessels idle, as fouling can significantly impact performance and fuel efficiency. Understanding the scope of a fouling clause helps charterers navigate potential costs and ensure clear terms for post-redelivery responsibilities, as highlighted in cases like The “Globe Danae” [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 309.

In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

This case examines the liability of Maersk Line for damages to a shipment of cocoa beans, focusing on whether JB Cocoa had standing as the owner, and whether Maersk fulfilled its obligations under the bill of lading and the Hague Rules. The court also considered the application of the inherent vice defense in relation to the damaged cargo.

ABC insurance company rejected B’s claim for cargo damage. Unhappy with the rejection, B sued ABC insurance company and the ship owner who carries its goods for negligence.