PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
LITIGATION DEPARTMENT — INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
FROM: Hannah Brinkley (Lead Associate, Litigation) and Patrick Gallagher (Working Associate, Litigation)
REVIEWED BY: Samuel Eklund (Responsible Partner, Litigation)
TO: File — Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA v. Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd.
DATE: 5 July 2024
RE: Enforcement Strategy — England & Wales: LCIA Award No. 224718 — Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA v. Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd.
MATTER REFERENCE: SC/LIT/2024/0892
This memorandum is protected by legal professional privilege and constitutes attorney work product. It has been prepared exclusively for the internal use of Calderwood & Harkness LLP in connection with the above-referenced matter. It must not be disclosed to any third party, including the client, without the express written authorisation of the Responsible Partner.
Right-click to update Table of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this memorandum is to set out and analyse the available enforcement options in England and Wales in respect of LCIA Final Award No. 224718, dated 28 June 2024 (the "Award"), rendered in favour of our client, Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA ("TSL" or the "Claimant"), against Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd. ("KMH" or the "Respondent").
The Award was rendered by a distinguished tribunal comprising Sir Malcolm Fenton-Clarke (Presiding Arbitrator), Professor Athena Drakopoulos, and Dr. Henrik Dalmqvist. The arbitration was seated in London and governed by English law, with the procedural framework of the LCIA Rules 2020 applying throughout.
The total sums awarded in favour of TSL are as follows:
At the prevailing exchange rate as of the date of the Award (£1 = USD $1.2441), the grand total enforceable sum is approximately USD $135,147,660 (approximately USD $120 million in round terms when expressing the Award amount exclusive of a portion of costs).
Post-award interest runs at 5.25% per annum simple on the unpaid sum of £96,450,000 from 29 June 2024 until payment. At the current rate, this amounts to approximately £13,862 per day, or approximately £5,061,625 per annum.
KMH has failed to make any voluntary payment under the Award. Based on the intelligence gathered to date by our forensic asset tracing consultants, Hartwell Pemberton LLP, there are strong grounds to believe that KMH is actively dissipating or re-arranging its assets to frustrate enforcement.
Our recommended enforcement strategy for the England and Wales jurisdiction comprises the following principal steps:
(i) An application under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the "Act") to enforce the Award as a judgment of the Commercial Court, to be filed on or about 15 July 2024;
(ii) An application for a worldwide freezing order (Mareva injunction) under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, to be made without notice on or about 16 July 2024;
(iii) A third-party debt order against Meridian Trust Bank Ltd. under CPR Part 72, to be filed promptly upon the grant of the enforcement order under section 66; and
(iv) Preparation to resist any anticipated challenge by KMH to the Award under sections 68 and/or 69 of the Act.
The England and Wales enforcement proceedings form part of a broader multi-jurisdictional enforcement campaign encompassing parallel proceedings in Cyprus, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates. This memorandum addresses only the England and Wales component. Separate memoranda address the enforcement strategy in each of the other jurisdictions.
We assess the prospects of success for the section 66 enforcement application as very high, the prospects of obtaining a worldwide freezing order as strong (subject to the full and frank disclosure obligations inherent in without-notice applications), and the likelihood of a successful challenge by KMH under sections 68 or 69 as very low. The overall enforcement strategy is designed to secure the maximum possible recovery for TSL as rapidly and efficiently as possible.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The Parties
2.1.1 Claimant / Award Creditor: Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA
Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA is a Société Anonyme organised under Greek law. It is registered at 14 Akti Miaouli, Piraeus 185 35, Greece, under Tax Identification Number EL-801456729. TSL is a privately held shipping and logistics company operating a fleet of approximately 34 vessels and generating annual revenues of approximately €620 million in the financial year ended 31 December 2023.
The ownership structure of TSL comprises a 72% majority interest held by the Papadimitriou family trust and a 28% minority interest held by Aegean Capital Partners SA, a Greek private equity firm. The company has been in continuous operation for over three decades and is a well-established and reputable participant in the international dry-bulk shipping market.
The key personnel relevant to this matter are as follows:
•  Nikolaos Papadimitriou — Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Papadimitriou is the principal decision-maker for TSL and will serve as the primary witness for the enforcement proceedings, including the provision of evidence in support of the worldwide freezing order application.
•  Elena Stavridis — Chief Financial Officer. Ms. Stavridis has oversight of TSL's financial affairs and will be available to provide evidence as to the financial impact of KMH's breaches on TSL's operations.
•  Captain Dimitrios Kouretas — Head of Chartering and Operations. Captain Kouretas was directly responsible for the management of the three charter-party agreements at issue and was a key factual witness in the LCIA arbitration.
•  Ioanna Christodoulou — General Counsel. Ms. Christodoulou has instructed Calderwood & Harkness LLP in connection with the enforcement proceedings and serves as the primary point of contact for legal matters.
TSL's substantial financial standing (annual revenues of approximately €620 million) is relevant to its ability to satisfy the cross-undertaking in damages that will be required in connection with the worldwide freezing order application, as discussed further in section 4.4 below.
2.1.2 Respondent / Award Debtor: Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd.
Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd. is a private limited company incorporated in the Republic of Cyprus under Registration Number HE 387421. Its registered office is at 28 Themistokli Dervi Avenue, Suite 601, Nicosia 1066, Cyprus. KMH operates as a vessel-owning and chartering company, controlling a fleet of approximately 18 dry-bulk carriers through a network of special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") established in multiple jurisdictions.
KMH is beneficially owned by the Volkov family through a series of holding structures in the British Virgin Islands and Cyprus. The ultimate beneficial owner is Andrei Volkov, who controls KMH as a de facto director notwithstanding his name not appearing on the formal directorship register. The corporate structure is deliberately opaque and has been designed, as the evidence from Hartwell Pemberton suggests, to facilitate the movement of assets across jurisdictions and to insulate them from creditor claims.
The estimated pre-dispute net asset value of KMH and its related entities was approximately USD $280 million. However, as discussed in section 4.2 below, there is significant intelligence to suggest that assets have been dispersed or re-arranged in the period since the dispute arose, and particularly following the rendering of the Award.
The key personnel on the respondent's side are:
•  Andrei Volkov — Ultimate beneficial owner and de facto director. Mr. Volkov exercises effective control over KMH and its SPV network. He is believed to reside primarily in Cyprus, with secondary residences in London and Dubai.
•  Sergei Volkov — Director. Sergei Volkov is the formally appointed director of KMH and the son (alternatively, brother — this remains unconfirmed) of Andrei Volkov. He is the registered signatory on KMH's Meridian Trust Bank accounts in London.
•  Marina Kazakova — Chief Financial Officer. Ms. Kazakova manages the financial operations of KMH and its SPVs and is believed to have operational control over the intercompany transfer mechanisms that are central to the dissipation concerns.
•  Alexei Demidov — Director of Fleet Operations. Mr. Demidov manages the day-to-day operation of KMH's fleet and has been identified in Hartwell Pemberton's intelligence as having facilitated the post-Award arrangements for the sale of the M/V Crimson Horizon.
KMH's SPV network includes the following entities, which are relevant to the enforcement campaign:
2.1.3 KMH's Legal Representation
KMH is represented in all English proceedings by Harkness Whitford & Co., a law firm based at 12 Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1JP (SRA Registration Number 614823). The relevant partners and associates at Harkness Whitford are:
•  Richard Harkness — Senior Partner. Mr. Harkness is the lead partner with overall conduct of KMH's legal strategy.
•  Catherine Whitford — Partner, International Arbitration. Ms. Whitford had primary conduct of KMH's defence in the LCIA arbitration and is expected to lead any challenge to the Award under sections 68 and/or 69 of the Act.
•  James Thornbury — Associate. Mr. Thornbury provides day-to-day support and is the primary point of contact for interlocutory matters.
Harkness Whitford is a competent shipping litigation firm, and we should expect vigorous opposition at every stage of the enforcement proceedings. However, the firm's resources are considerably more limited than those of a full-service international firm, and KMH's ability to sustain a protracted multi-jurisdictional contest will inevitably be constrained by the costs involved.
2.2 The Underlying Dispute and LCIA Arbitration
2.2.1 The Charter-Party Agreements
The dispute arises out of three time charter-party agreements entered into between TSL, as charterer, and KMH, as disponent owner, in respect of three dry-bulk carriers. All three charter-parties were governed by English law and contained LCIA arbitration clauses specifying London as the seat of arbitration. The relevant details of each charter are as follows:
M/V *Aegean Fortuna* (IMO 9784521)
This is a Supramax-class vessel of 58,200 deadweight tonnes, registered under the flag of the Republic of the marshall Islands. The vessel is beneficially owned through Dnepr Shipholding Inc. (BVI). The time charter-party was signed on 15 March 2019 for a period of approximately five years. The agreed hire rate was competitive at the time of fixing but became highly favourable to TSL as the dry-bulk market strengthened significantly from 2021 onwards.
M/V *Crimson Horizon* (IMO 9801334)
This is a Handymax-class vessel of 37,500 deadweight tonnes, registered under the flag of Liberia. The vessel is beneficially owned through Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. The time charter-party was signed on 22 January 2020 for a period of approximately four years. Similar to the Aegean Fortuna, the hire rate became increasingly favourable to TSL as market rates rose.
M/V *Volga Spirit* (IMO 9756892)
This is a Panamax-class vessel of 76,400 deadweight tonnes, registered under the flag of the Republic of Cyprus. The vessel is beneficially owned through Dnepr Shipholding Inc. (BVI). The time charter-party was signed on 10 June 2021. The Volga Spirit charter was the most recently concluded of the three agreements and was entered into at a time when the market was already strengthening, though the fixture rate still proved advantageous to TSL.
2.2.2 KMH's Repudiatory Breaches
Beginning in mid-2022, as the differential between the contractual hire rates and prevailing market rates widened substantially, KMH engaged in a pattern of repudiatory breaches across all three charter-party agreements. The tribunal found that these breaches were motivated by KMH's desire to re-let the vessels at the significantly higher prevailing market rates, in wilful disregard of its contractual obligations to TSL. The principal breaches were as follows:
(a) Wrongful early redelivery of M/V *Aegean Fortuna*: KMH wrongfully redelivered the vessel to TSL on 18 June 2022, approximately 14 months before the earliest contractual redelivery date. No lawful basis for the early redelivery was established. The tribunal found that KMH's purported justification — an alleged failure by TSL to maintain the vessel in accordance with the charter terms — was fabricated and without any foundation in fact. The early redelivery deprived TSL of the use of the vessel during a period of historically high market rates.
(b) Failure to pay hire on M/V *Crimson Horizon*: From 1 July 2022, KMH ceased making hire payments under the Crimson Horizon charter-party. Hire arrears accumulated to £4,280,000 before TSL exercised its contractual right to withdraw the vessel on 15 September 2022. The tribunal found that KMH's non-payment was deliberate and formed part of the same strategy to extricate itself from below-market charters.
(c) Fabricated off-hire deductions on M/V *Volga Spirit*: Rather than openly defaulting on the Volga Spirit charter, KMH adopted a more insidious approach. It fabricated a series of off-hire deductions totalling approximately £2,740,000, purportedly for periods when the vessel was said to have been off-hire due to mechanical breakdowns or port delays. The tribunal found, on the basis of extensive documentary and expert evidence, that the claimed off-hire events either did not occur at all or were grossly exaggerated, and that the deductions were a transparent device to reduce KMH's effective hire obligations.
The tribunal's findings as to the deliberate and bad faith nature of KMH's conduct are highly relevant to the enforcement proceedings, both in establishing the risk of dissipation for the purposes of the worldwide freezing order and in demonstrating KMH's general approach to its legal and commercial obligations.
2.2.3 The LCIA Arbitration
LCIA Arbitration No. 224718 was commenced by TSL's filing of a Request for Arbitration on 14 November 2022. The Tribunal was constituted on 8 February 2023 as follows:
•  Sir Malcolm Fenton-Clarke — Presiding Arbitrator. Sir Malcolm is a retired High Court judge (Queen's Bench Division) and one of the most experienced shipping arbitrators in London. He was appointed by the LCIA Court.
•  Professor Athena Drakopoulos — Arbitrator. Professor Drakopoulos is a Professor of International Commercial Law at King's College London and was nominated by TSL.
•  Dr. Henrik Dalmqvist — Arbitrator. Dr. Dalmqvist is a partner at a leading Swedish law firm and a specialist in maritime arbitration. He was nominated by KMH.
•  Fiona Beckett — Tribunal Secretary. Ms. Beckett assisted the Tribunal in the administration of the proceedings.
The arbitration proceeded through a full documentary disclosure process, the exchange of witness statements and expert reports, and a 10-day evidentiary hearing held from 11 to 22 September 2023 at the International Dispute Resolution Centre ("IDRC") in London. The hearing encompassed the cross-examination of factual witnesses from both sides, as well as the examination of quantum experts. Post-hearing briefs were exchanged, and the Tribunal reserved its decision.
The Final Award was issued on 28 June 2024. It is a comprehensive and carefully reasoned document of approximately 187 pages, addressing all substantive and procedural issues in detail. The Award was rendered unanimously, with no dissenting opinion.
As of the date of this memorandum, KMH has failed to make any voluntary payment under the Award. No communication has been received from Harkness Whitford indicating any intention on KMH's part to satisfy the Award.
2.3 Award Breakdown
The Award addresses each of the three charter-party disputes and awards damages as follows:
2.3.1 M/V *Aegean Fortuna* — Wrongful Early Redelivery Damages: £42,300,000
The tribunal awarded TSL damages for loss of bargain arising from the wrongful early redelivery of the M/V Aegean Fortuna. The vessel was redelivered 14 months before the earliest contractual redelivery date. The tribunal calculated damages on the basis of the difference between the contractual hire rate and the market rate at which TSL was able to re-fix the vessel, applied over the remaining charter period of 14 months. This yielded a damages figure of approximately £3,021,429 per month, totalling £42,300,000. The tribunal rejected KMH's arguments that TSL had failed to mitigate its loss, finding that TSL had acted promptly and reasonably in re-chartering the vessel and that the market conditions at the relevant time were such that mitigation opportunities were limited.
2.3.2 M/V *Crimson Horizon* — Outstanding Hire and Loss of Bargain Damages: £28,150,000
The damages for the Crimson Horizon comprised two elements:
(a) Outstanding hire arrears of £4,280,000, representing the unpaid hire for the period from 1 July 2022 to 15 September 2022 when TSL withdrew the vessel; and
(b) Loss of bargain damages of £23,870,000, representing the difference between the contractual hire rate and the prevailing market rate over the unexpired period of the charter, calculated by reference to the Baltic Exchange forward freight indices and adjusted by the tribunal's appointed quantum expert, Mr. Geoffrey Ashcroft FCA.
KMH's mitigation arguments were again rejected. The tribunal found that TSL had re-chartered the vessel within a reasonable timeframe and on reasonable terms, and that the remaining differential represented a genuine and irrecoverable loss attributable to KMH's repudiatory breach.
2.3.3 M/V *Volga Spirit* — Restitution of Fabricated Off-Hire Deductions: £2,740,000
The tribunal ordered KMH to repay to TSL the sum of £2,740,000 in respect of fabricated off-hire deductions wrongfully applied under the Volga Spirit charter-party. The tribunal found that the deductions were made without any legitimate basis and that the underlying off-hire claims were fabricated. This head of damages represents a straightforward restitutionary remedy.
2.3.4 Loss of Profit / Market Differential Damages: £16,480,000
In addition to the vessel-specific damages set out above, the tribunal awarded TSL a further £16,480,000 in respect of consequential loss of profit and market differential damages arising across all three charters. This figure accounts for TSL's loss of the ability to deploy the vessels in its integrated logistics operations during the periods of disruption, the additional costs incurred in sourcing replacement tonnage, and the general adverse impact on TSL's commercial operations arising from KMH's coordinated programme of breaches.
2.3.5 Pre-Award Interest: £6,780,000
The tribunal awarded pre-award interest at a rate of 5.25% per annum simple, calculated on a blended basis from the respective dates of breach to the date of the Award (28 June 2024). The aggregate pre-award interest across all heads of damage totalled £6,780,000. The interest rate selected by the tribunal was consistent with the Bank of England base rate prevailing during the relevant period plus a modest uplift to reflect commercial reality.
2.3.6 Costs: £12,150,000
The tribunal allocated costs 85% to KMH, reflecting what it described as KMH's "entirely unsuccessful defence and the reprehensible nature of its conduct." The costs allocation comprised:
(a) LCIA administrative and tribunal costs of £3,240,000; and
(b) TSL's legal costs in the sum of £8,910,000 (representing 85% of TSL's total legal costs of £10,482,353).
The total costs allocated to KMH are therefore £12,150,000.
2.3.7 Summary.  The grand total enforceable sum is £108,600,000, comprising the Award of £96,450,000 and costs of £12,150,000.
Post-award interest accrues at 5.25% per annum simple on the unpaid Award sum of £96,450,000 from 29 June 2024 until payment.
3. ENFORCEMENT UNDER SECTION 66 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996
3.1 Legal Framework
Section 66(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 provides:
"An award made by the tribunal pursuant to an arbitration agreement may, by leave of the court, be enforced in the same manner as a judgment or order of the court to the same effect."
This provision is the primary mechanism for the enforcement of London-seated arbitral awards in England and Wales. It applies to awards made pursuant to an arbitration agreement where the seat of the arbitration is in England and Wales or Northern Ireland. As the LCIA arbitration in this case was seated in London, and the arbitration agreement (contained in each of the three charter-parties) specifies London as the seat and English law as the governing law, the Award falls squarely within the scope of section 66.
The LCIA Award qualifies as an "award" within the meaning of Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996. It was rendered by a properly constituted tribunal in accordance with the LCIA Rules 2020 and is a final award disposing of all claims and counterclaims between the parties.
An application under section 66 is to be made to the Commercial Court pursuant to CPR Part 62. Section II of CPR Part 62 (Arbitration Claims) governs the procedure. The application is made by arbitration claim form (Form N8) and must be supported by the evidence required under the applicable Practice Direction.
The requirements for the grant of leave to enforce are well established. The award creditor must demonstrate:
(a) the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties;
(b) that a valid award has been made by the tribunal pursuant to that agreement;
(c) that the award has been served on the respondent in accordance with the requirements of the arbitral rules or any agreed method of service; and
(d) that the time for bringing any challenge to the award under sections 67, 68, or 69 of the Act has either expired without a challenge being brought, or that any challenge has been disposed of.
With respect to requirement (d), we note that the 28-day time limit for challenges under sections 67, 68, and 69 runs from the date of the Award (28 June 2024) and therefore expires on 26 July 2024. Our proposed filing date for the section 66 application is 15 July 2024, which is within the challenge period. However, it is well established that a section 66 application may be filed during the challenge period — the court has discretion to either grant leave immediately or to defer the enforcement order until the challenge period has expired or any challenge has been resolved. In practice, the Commercial Court will typically grant permission to enforce even where the challenge period has not yet expired, unless a challenge application has actually been filed or the respondent indicates an intention to file one. If KMH does file a challenge application, we would expect the court to grant enforcement but potentially stay execution pending the outcome of the challenge (see further section 6.4 below).
3.2 Procedural Steps
The procedural steps for the section 66 application are as follows:
(a) Filing: The application will be made by arbitration claim form (Form N8) filed in the Commercial Court (Queen's Bench Division, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales). The claim form will identify TSL as the claimant/applicant and KMH as the respondent, and will seek leave to enforce the LCIA Award in the same manner as a judgment of the court.
(b) Supporting Evidence: The application will be supported by a witness statement of Nikolaos Papadimitriou, the Chairman and CEO of TSL. Mr. Papadimitriou's witness statement will cover the following matters:
(i) the factual background to the dispute, including the three charter-party agreements and KMH's repudiatory breaches;
(ii) the conduct of the LCIA arbitration and the rendering of the Final Award;
(iii) the terms of the Award, including the damages and costs awarded;
(iv) KMH's failure to make any voluntary payment under the Award;
(v) evidence of KMH's dissipation of assets (which will also support the worldwide freezing order application — see section 4 below); and
(vi) the basis for seeking enforcement and the urgency of the application.
The witness statement will exhibit the following documents:
(i) the LCIA Final Award No. 224718, dated 28 June 2024;
(ii) the relevant arbitration clauses from each of the three charter-party agreements;
(iii) evidence of service of the Award on KMH (the LCIA's confirmation of transmission to the parties); and
(iv) the pre-enforcement demand letter to Harkness Whitford & Co. (to be sent in the week of 8 July 2024).
(c) Filing Date: We propose to file the section 66 application on 15 July 2024. This date has been selected to allow sufficient time for the preparation of Mr. Papadimitriou's witness statement and the assembly of the exhibit bundle, while also ensuring that the application is made promptly after the issuance of the Award.
(d) Court Number: Upon filing, the application will be assigned a claim number in the Commercial Court. Based on current numbering, we anticipate the claim number will be CL-2024-000487 (this will be confirmed upon filing).
(e) Consideration Without Hearing: In straightforward cases, the court may grant leave to enforce under section 66 without an oral hearing, on the papers alone. Given the clear and unambiguous nature of the Award, the London seat, and the English law governing the arbitration agreements, we consider this to be a case in which the court may well be willing to deal with the application on the papers. However, we should be prepared for the possibility that the court may direct an oral hearing, particularly if KMH files a challenge application or indicates an intention to oppose the enforcement.
3.3 Prospects of Success
We assess the prospects of success for the section 66 application as very high. The following factors support this assessment:
(a) The LCIA Award is a London-seated award rendered by a tribunal of eminent arbitrators under arbitration agreements governed by English law. This is the paradigm case for enforcement under section 66.
(b) The Award is final and binding on the parties. It was rendered unanimously and without dissent.
(c) There are no obvious grounds for refusing enforcement. The arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable; the tribunal was properly constituted; the procedure was fair and in accordance with the LCIA Rules; and the Award addresses all substantive issues between the parties.
(d) The only potential impediment to enforcement is a challenge application by KMH under sections 68 or 69 of the Act. As analysed in detail in section 6 below, we consider the prospects of any such challenge succeeding to be very low.
We expect that permission to enforce will be granted within two to three weeks of filing — that is, by approximately 2 August 2024.
3.4 Effect of Enforcement Order
Once the court grants leave to enforce the Award under section 66, the Award has the same effect for all purposes as a judgment or order of the High Court. This is of critical practical importance because it opens the full range of English execution remedies to TSL, including but not limited to:
(a) Third-party debt orders (CPR Part 72) — enabling TSL to garnish debts owed to KMH by third parties, including bank account balances (see section 5 below);
(b) Charging orders (CPR Part 73) — enabling TSL to obtain a charge over KMH's interest in any English land, securities, or other chargeable property;
(c) Writs of control (CPR Part 83) — enabling the enforcement of the judgment against KMH's goods in England and Wales;
(d) Appointment of receivers by way of equitable execution — enabling the court to appoint a receiver over KMH's assets where other enforcement methods are inadequate (see section 7.2 below); and
(e) Oral examination (CPR Part 71) — enabling TSL to compel officers of KMH to attend court and provide information about KMH's means and assets (see section 7.3 below).
Furthermore, the enforcement order results in the Award being entered on the court record as a judgment of the High Court. This is of significance for the multi-jurisdictional enforcement campaign, as an English High Court judgment may be recognised and enforced in a number of foreign jurisdictions under various international conventions, bilateral treaties, and local legislation. The English enforcement judgment may therefore serve as the basis for enforcement in jurisdictions where the direct enforcement of an arbitral award would be more procedurally complex or uncertain.
4. WORLDWIDE FREEZING ORDER (MAREVA INJUNCTION)
4.1 Legal Basis
TSL intends to apply for a worldwide freezing order ("WFO") restraining KMH from dissipating or dealing with its assets up to the value of the enforceable sum of £108,600,000. The legal basis for the application is section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which confers on the High Court a broad power to grant injunctions in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so, read together with CPR Part 25 (Interim Remedies).
The application will be made in the standard Commercial Court form of freezing order, as set out in the Appendix to the Commercial Court Guide. This form is well understood by the banking and financial community in London and internationally, and its terms have been refined over decades of practice to strike an appropriate balance between the legitimate interests of judgment creditors and the rights of respondents.
The requirements for the grant of a freezing order are well established:
(i) A good arguable case on the merits (or, as here, a judgment/award): This threshold is more than satisfied. TSL does not merely have a "good arguable case" — it has a final and binding LCIA Award in its favour for £108,600,000, rendered after a full 10-day evidentiary hearing. The Award constitutes the strongest possible foundation for a freezing order application.
(ii) A real risk of dissipation of assets: TSL has substantial evidence, based on the preliminary findings of Hartwell Pemberton LLP, that KMH is actively dissipating or re-arranging its assets to frustrate enforcement. This evidence is summarised in section 4.2 below.
(iii) Justice of the case / balance of convenience: The balance of convenience strongly favours the grant of a freezing order. TSL has a final award for a very substantial sum; KMH has made no voluntary payment and there is evidence of dissipation; and TSL is able to provide a meaningful cross-undertaking in damages. Against this, KMH's interest in being free to deal with its assets is significantly attenuated by the existence of the Award and the evidence of its bad faith conduct.
4.2 Evidence of Risk of Dissipation
The evidence of dissipation risk is derived from two principal sources: (a) the preliminary findings of Hartwell Pemberton LLP, our forensic asset tracing consultants; and (b) the findings of the tribunal in the Award itself as to KMH's conduct during the underlying dispute.
4.2.1 Hartwell Pemberton LLP — Preliminary Asset Tracing Findings
We have engaged Hartwell Pemberton LLP ("HP") to conduct forensic asset tracing in respect of KMH and its related entities. HP is led on this engagement by Rebecca Saunders (Partner) and Mark Huxley (Director). HP has provided a preliminary report, the key findings of which are as follows:
(a) Post-Award Transfers: Since the issuance of the Award on 28 June 2024, HP has identified evidence that KMH has initiated transfers from its London and Cyprus bank accounts to entities connected to Andrei Volkov. The precise nature and quantum of these transfers are still being analysed, but the pattern is consistent with an attempt to move assets beyond the reach of TSL's enforcement efforts.
(b) Proposed Sale of M/V *Crimson Horizon*: HP has obtained intelligence indicating that Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. — the KMH SPV that owns the M/V Crimson Horizon — is actively arranging the sale of that vessel. The vessel is currently located in or near Singapore. The timing of this proposed sale, coming immediately after the issuance of the Award, is highly suspicious and strongly suggests an attempt to convert a readily identifiable and attachable asset (a vessel) into cash that can be moved and concealed.
(c) Complex and Opaque Corporate Structure: KMH's corporate structure is designed to hold assets in SPVs across multiple jurisdictions. The key entities include Dnepr Shipholding Inc. (BVI), Korinthian DMCC (Dubai), Oceangate Ventures Ltd. (Cyprus), and Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. This structure, while not inherently improper, significantly facilitates the movement of assets across borders and the obscuring of the true location and ownership of KMH's wealth. The use of BVI holding companies, in particular, is consistent with an asset protection strategy designed to frustrate creditors.
(d) Pattern of Asset-Shifting: HP has identified a broader pattern of asset-shifting through the Volkov family network. Intercompany transactions between KMH and its related entities, as well as transfers to entities apparently controlled by or associated with Andrei Volkov, have increased significantly in frequency and value since the commencement of the LCIA arbitration in November 2022, and have accelerated further since the Award was issued.
(e) Discrepancy Between Pre-Dispute NAV and Current Asset Position: KMH's estimated pre-dispute net asset value was approximately USD $280 million. The Award amounts to approximately USD $120 million — less than half of KMH's pre-dispute NAV. If KMH's assets had been maintained, there should be more than sufficient value to satisfy the Award. The fact that KMH has made no voluntary payment and appears to be actively moving assets suggests that significant value has already been dispersed and that the remaining asset base is shrinking.
4.2.2 Conduct During the Underlying Dispute
The tribunal's findings in the Award provide further compelling evidence of KMH's propensity for dishonest and bad faith conduct. The tribunal found that:
(a) KMH's purported justification for the early redelivery of the M/V Aegean Fortuna was "fabricated and without any foundation in fact";
(b) KMH's off-hire deductions on the M/V Volga Spirit were "fabricated" and constituted "a transparent device to reduce KMH's effective hire obligations"; and
(c) KMH's overall course of conduct across all three charters reflected "a deliberate and coordinated programme of breach, motivated by a desire to profit from the rising market at TSL's expense."
This pattern of dishonest conduct is directly relevant to the dissipation inquiry. The English courts have consistently held that evidence of dishonesty or sharp practice in the underlying transaction is a relevant factor in assessing the risk of dissipation of assets. A party that has demonstrated a willingness to fabricate claims and act in bad faith in its commercial dealings is more likely, other things being equal, to take steps to defeat a judgment creditor's legitimate claims.
Taken together, the Hartwell Pemberton findings and the tribunal's own findings provide a strong evidentiary basis for the court to conclude that there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by KMH and that the grant of a worldwide freezing order is necessary to preserve the effectiveness of the enforcement proceedings.
4.3 Proposed Terms of the WFO
The proposed terms of the worldwide freezing order are as follows:
(a) Maximum Restrained Sum: £108,600,000, being the full amount of the Award (£96,450,000) plus costs (£12,150,000), together with any further sums in respect of post-award interest that may have accrued by the date of the order.
(b) Scope: The order will have worldwide effect, restraining KMH from dealing with, disposing of, diminishing the value of, or removing from England and Wales any of its assets, whether located within or outside the jurisdiction, up to the maximum restrained sum.
(c) Ancillary Asset Disclosure Provision: The order will include a provision requiring KMH to disclose, by way of sworn statement, all of its assets worldwide with a value exceeding £25,000, within 7 days of service of the order. The disclosure must include full details of the nature, location, and value of each asset, together with details of any charges, encumbrances, or third-party interests.
(d) Standard Exceptions: The order will include the standard exceptions for:
(i) expenditure in the ordinary course of business, up to a reasonable weekly limit to be specified;
(ii) payment of reasonable legal fees in connection with the enforcement proceedings and any challenge to the Award, subject to a cap to be specified and to the requirement that KMH's solicitors notify TSL's solicitors of the amount and source of any payments; and
(iii) dealing with or disposing of assets in the ordinary course of business, provided that the total unencumbered value of KMH's assets in England and Wales remains above a specified threshold.
(e) Without-Notice Application: Given the clear evidence of dissipation risk, the application will be made without notice (ex parte) to KMH. This is appropriate because:
(i) the giving of notice would defeat the purpose of the order, as KMH would have the opportunity to further dissipate its assets before the order could be served; and
(ii) there is strong evidence of a present and continuing risk of dissipation that requires immediate judicial intervention.
(f) Return Date: A return date will be fixed within 14 days of the grant of the order (expected approximately 30 July 2024), at which KMH will have the opportunity to apply to vary or discharge the order.
The target filing date for the WFO application is 16 July 2024 — the day after the filing of the section 66 application. It may be possible to file both applications on the same date; however, it is tactically preferable to file the section 66 application first and the WFO application the following day, to ensure that the WFO application is heard by a duty judge as soon as possible.
4.4 Practical Considerations
Several practical matters require careful attention in connection with the WFO application:
4.4.1 Full and Frank Disclosure
The obligation of full and frank disclosure on an ex parte application is of the utmost importance. The applicant must disclose to the court all material facts, including those that are adverse to its case. Failure to comply with this obligation may result in the discharge of the freezing order and an adverse costs order, even if the order would otherwise have been justified on the merits.
We must therefore prepare a comprehensive witness statement that addresses any weaknesses in TSL's case, including:
(a) any arguable defences or mitigating factors that KMH raised in the arbitration, even though those defences were ultimately rejected by the tribunal;
(b) any uncertainty in the Hartwell Pemberton evidence, including the preliminary nature of certain findings and the limitations of the available intelligence;
(c) the existence and timing of the 28-day challenge period under sections 68 and 69 of the Act, and the possibility that KMH may file a challenge; and
(d) any matters that might weigh against the grant of the order, such as the potential impact on KMH's legitimate business operations.
4.4.2 Penal Notice
A penal notice must be endorsed on the sealed order, warning KMH and any officer or director of KMH that failure to comply with the terms of the order may constitute contempt of court, punishable by imprisonment, fine, or seizure of assets. The penal notice is essential to ensure that the order is enforceable by committal proceedings if necessary.
4.4.3 Service.  The sealed WFO must be served promptly on KMH and on Harkness Whitford & Co. as KMH's solicitors on the record. Service on Harkness Whitford will constitute good service for the purposes of bringing the order to KMH's attention. In addition, the order must be served on Meridian Trust Bank Ltd. as a notified third party, to ensure that Meridian Trust is on notice of its obligation not to permit any dealing with KMH's accounts in breach of the order.
4.4.4 Cross-Undertaking in Damages
TSL will be required to provide the standard cross-undertaking in damages as a condition of the grant of the freezing order. The cross-undertaking is an undertaking by TSL to pay such damages as the court may consider KMH (or any third party affected by the order) to have sustained by reason of the order, if the court later determines that the order should not have been granted.
TSL is well positioned to satisfy this requirement. With annual revenues of approximately €620 million and a substantial asset base, TSL's creditworthiness is not in doubt. We will address this point in Mr. Papadimitriou's witness statement, exhibiting TSL's most recent audited financial statements to demonstrate TSL's ability to honour the cross-undertaking.
4.4.5 Coordination with Multi-Jurisdictional Proceedings
The WFO, with its worldwide scope, will support and complement the parallel freezing injunction applications in Cyprus (over Oceangate Ventures Ltd. shares and KMH's Cypriot bank accounts), Singapore (Mareva-type injunction, garnishment against Pinnacle Bank (Singapore) Ltd., and arrest of the M/V Crimson Horizon), and the UAE (precautionary attachment over Korinthian DMCC accounts at Emirates Gulf Commercial Bank PJSC). The existence of an English WFO, granted by the Commercial Court, carries significant weight with courts in other jurisdictions and will strengthen the parallel applications.
4.4.6 Return Date
We must be prepared to attend the return date hearing, which we anticipate will take place on or about 30 July 2024. At this hearing, Harkness Whitford will likely appear on behalf of KMH and seek to vary or discharge the order. We anticipate that the principal arguments KMH will advance are:
(a) that there is no sufficient evidence of dissipation;
(b) that the freezing order is unduly burdensome and interferes with KMH's legitimate business operations;
(c) that TSL has failed to comply with its duty of full and frank disclosure; and
(d) that the maximum restrained sum should be reduced.
We will prepare a detailed skeleton argument for the return date hearing addressing each of these anticipated points. Given the strength of the dissipation evidence, we are confident that the order will be continued, potentially with minor modifications.
4.5 Enforcement of WFO Disclosure Obligations
The ancillary asset disclosure provision of the WFO is of critical strategic importance to the overall enforcement campaign. KMH will be required to provide a sworn statement disclosing all of its assets worldwide exceeding £25,000 within 7 days of service of the order.
The information obtained through this disclosure will be invaluable for the following purposes:
(a) Bank Account Identification: The disclosure will reveal the details of all bank accounts maintained by KMH in any jurisdiction. This information will be used to support third-party debt order applications in England (against Meridian Trust Bank Ltd. and any other English banks identified) and equivalent garnishment or attachment applications in other jurisdictions.
(b) Vessel Ownership Chains: The disclosure will reveal the full details of KMH's vessel ownership structure, including the identity of all SPVs through which vessels are held, the jurisdiction of incorporation of each SPV, and the flag state and location of each vessel. This information is essential for the vessel arrest strategy in Singapore and potentially other jurisdictions.
(c) Receivables: The disclosure will reveal the details of all receivables owed to KMH, including sub-charterer receivables. Based on HP's preliminary findings, total sub-charterer receivables are estimated at approximately £4,200,000. These receivables may be amenable to garnishment in England or other jurisdictions.
(d) Shareholdings in SPVs: The disclosure will reveal the details of KMH's shareholdings in its various SPV entities, including Oceangate Ventures Ltd. (Cyprus), Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Korinthian DMCC (Dubai), and Dnepr Shipholding Inc. (BVI). These shareholdings may themselves be the subject of charging orders or other security interests.
Failure by KMH to comply with the disclosure obligations will constitute contempt of court. If KMH fails to provide full and accurate disclosure, TSL will be entitled to apply for committal proceedings against KMH's directors, including Sergei Volkov and any other officers who are responsible for the non-compliance. The prospect of personal liability for contempt, including potential imprisonment, provides a powerful incentive for compliance.
We note, however, that the practical effectiveness of the disclosure obligation depends on KMH's willingness to comply and on the ability of the English court to enforce its orders against individuals who may not be within the jurisdiction. Andrei Volkov and Sergei Volkov are believed to reside primarily in Cyprus, and their willingness to attend English court proceedings is uncertain. Nevertheless, the disclosure obligation remains a valuable tool, and any non-compliance will itself provide further evidence of KMH's bad faith conduct that can be deployed in support of the enforcement campaign.
5. THIRD-PARTY DEBT ORDER AGAINST MERIDIAN TRUST BANK LTD.
5.1 Identified English Assets — Bank Account intelligence
The principal identified English asset of KMH is its banking relationship with Meridian Trust Bank Ltd. ("Meridian Trust"), a banking institution located at 50 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9EA.
Hartwell Pemberton's preliminary findings indicate that KMH maintains one or more accounts at Meridian Trust, which serve as KMH's primary London correspondent banking facility. These accounts are used for charter-party payments (both receivable and payable), operational expenditure in connection with KMH's UK-facing activities, and intercompany transfers between KMH and its various SPV entities.
The exact balance held in the Meridian Trust accounts is not yet confirmed. However, HP's transaction flow analysis, based on open-source shipping data, vessel tracking information, and intelligence obtained from market sources, indicates that significant funds are likely to be held in these accounts at any given time. KMH's London accounts appear to function as a central clearing hub for its chartering operations, with substantial inflows from charterer payments and outflows to SPV accounts, bunker suppliers, and other operational counterparties.
HP estimates that the potential recovery from an English garnishment of the Meridian Trust accounts could be substantial — in excess of £15 million — although the exact amount will depend on the account balances at the time of the freeze and the extent of any set-off rights or security interests held by Meridian Trust. We note that this estimate is necessarily uncertain and should be treated with appropriate caution.
The identification of the Meridian Trust accounts represents a significant enforcement opportunity. A third-party debt order against Meridian Trust, combined with the protective effect of the worldwide freezing order, has the potential to secure a meaningful initial recovery for TSL.
5.2 Legal Framework — CPR Part 72
A third-party debt order (formerly known as a "garnishment order") is governed by CPR Part 72. The effect of a third-party debt order is to require a third party (here, Meridian Trust Bank Ltd.) who owes a debt to the judgment debtor (here, KMH) to pay that debt directly to the judgment creditor (here, TSL), in or towards satisfaction of the judgment debt.
Bank deposits constitute debts owed by the bank to its customer. Accordingly, the balances standing to the credit of KMH's accounts at Meridian Trust are debts owed by Meridian Trust to KMH, which are amenable to a third-party debt order.
The third-party debt order procedure operates in two stages:
(i) Interim Third-Party Debt Order: The first stage is an application for an interim third-party debt order, which is made without notice to the judgment debtor (KMH). The application is considered by a judge sitting in private. If the court is satisfied that the conditions for the making of the order are met, it will make an interim order that has the effect of freezing the relevant accounts — specifically, prohibiting the third party (Meridian Trust) from making any payment out of, or otherwise dealing with, the debt owed to the judgment debtor, until the court makes a final order or discharges the interim order.
(ii) Final Third-Party Debt Order: The second stage is a hearing on notice to both the judgment debtor (KMH) and the third party (Meridian Trust), at which the court determines whether to make the interim order final (i.e., "absolute"). If the order is made final, Meridian Trust is required to pay the relevant sum directly to TSL. The court will make the order final unless the judgment debtor or the third party shows cause why the order should not be made — for example, because the third party has a valid set-off or lien, or because the debt is not one that is properly amenable to a third-party debt order.
The prerequisites for a third-party debt order are:
(a) an existing judgment or court order that is enforceable in England and Wales — this will be satisfied by the section 66 enforcement order;
(b) identification of the third party (Meridian Trust Bank Ltd.) who is within the jurisdiction and who owes a debt to the judgment debtor;
(c) evidence that the third party holds funds to the judgment debtor's credit — this is provided by HP's preliminary findings and will be confirmed by the WFO disclosure (if obtained before the TPDO application is filed); and
(d) that the application is supported by a witness statement setting out the judgment, the identity of the third party, the account information, and the grounds for believing that the third party holds funds to the debtor's credit.
5.3 Proposed Procedure and Timing
The proposed procedure and timing for the TPDO application are as follows:
(a) Filing: The application for an interim TPDO will be filed immediately upon the grant of permission to enforce under section 66 of the Act. Based on our current timetable, we anticipate that the section 66 enforcement order will be obtained by approximately 2 August 2024. The TPDO application will therefore be filed on or about 5 August 2024.
(b) Supporting Evidence: The application will be supported by a witness statement of Hannah Brinkley (lead associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP). The witness statement will address the following matters:
(i) the enforcement judgment (the section 66 order);
(ii) the identity and location of the third party (Meridian Trust Bank Ltd., 50 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9EA);
(iii) the account information obtained from HP's asset tracing, including the basis for believing that significant funds are held in KMH's accounts at Meridian Trust;
(iv) the need for urgency, given the evidence of dissipation and the risk that KMH may attempt to deplete the accounts; and
(v) confirmation that the WFO (if already in place) restrains KMH from dealing with the accounts.
(c) Interim Order: Upon the grant of the interim TPDO, the order will be served on Meridian Trust. The effect of the interim order is to freeze KMH's accounts at Meridian Trust, preventing Meridian Trust from making any payment out of those accounts until further order of the court.
(d) Service on Meridian Trust and KMH: The interim order will be served on Meridian Trust promptly after it is sealed. A copy of the order will also be served on KMH (through Harkness Whitford & Co.), although the order takes effect from the time it is served on Meridian Trust, not from the time it is served on KMH.
(e) Final TPDO Hearing: The final hearing will be listed approximately 4 weeks after the grant of the interim order — targeting early September 2024. At the final hearing, KMH and Meridian Trust will have the opportunity to show cause why the order should not be made final. If no sufficient cause is shown, the court will make the order absolute, and Meridian Trust will be required to pay the frozen funds directly to TSL or TSL's solicitors.
Based on HP's intelligence, the estimated recovery from the English garnishment could be substantial — potentially in excess of £15 million, depending on the account balances at the time the interim order takes effect. While this would represent only a fraction of the total enforceable sum of £108,600,000, it would constitute a significant initial recovery and demonstrate the effectiveness of the enforcement campaign.
5.4 Risk Considerations
The following risk factors should be noted in connection with the TPDO application:
(a) Risk of Pre-TPDO Depletion: There is a risk that KMH may attempt to move funds out of its Meridian Trust accounts in the period between the issuance of the Award and the grant of the interim TPDO. This risk is mitigated in two ways: first, by the WFO, which (if already in place) prohibits KMH from dealing with its assets, including the Meridian Trust accounts; and second, by the fact that the interim TPDO is made without notice to KMH and takes effect immediately upon service on Meridian Trust, giving KMH no opportunity to deplete the accounts between the grant and service of the order.
(b) Meridian Trust's Potential Set-Off or Security Interests: Meridian Trust may claim that it has set-off rights or security interests over KMH's account balances — for example, if KMH has borrowings from Meridian Trust that are secured by a charge over the accounts, or if there are unmatured liabilities that give rise to a right of set-off. Any such claims will need to be considered carefully and, if necessary, contested at the final TPDO hearing. We will instruct HP to investigate whether KMH has any borrowing relationship with Meridian Trust.
(c) Multiple Account Issues: If KMH maintains multiple accounts at Meridian Trust (e.g., current accounts, deposit accounts, foreign currency accounts), the TPDO may need to cover all such accounts. We will ensure that the application is drafted broadly enough to encompass all accounts held by KMH at Meridian Trust.
(d) Coordination with WFO: The TPDO and the WFO serve complementary but distinct functions. The WFO is a protective measure that preserves the status quo by preventing KMH from dissipating its assets; it does not of itself result in any payment to TSL. The TPDO, by contrast, is an execution remedy that results in the direct payment of funds to TSL. The two measures work in tandem: the WFO ensures that KMH cannot deplete the Meridian Trust accounts pending the TPDO application, while the TPDO provides the mechanism for actual recovery. It is essential that the two measures are coordinated to ensure maximum effectiveness.
6. ASSESSMENT OF KMH's LIKELY CHALLENGE UNDER SECTIONS 68 AND 69
6.1 Overview of Challenge Regime
The Arbitration Act 1996 provides a limited regime for challenging arbitral awards. The available grounds of challenge are:
(a) Section 67 — Substantive Jurisdiction: A party may challenge an award on the ground that the tribunal lacked substantive jurisdiction. This ground is not relevant here, as KMH participated fully in the arbitration and did not raise any jurisdictional objections. KMH is treated as having submitted to the jurisdiction of the tribunal.
(b) Section 68 — Serious Irregularity: A party may challenge an award on the ground that there has been a serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings, or the award. Section 68(2) provides an exhaustive list of the irregularities that may be relied upon. The threshold is high: the applicant must show both that there has been a serious irregularity falling within one of the categories in section 68(2) and that the irregularity "has caused or will cause substantial injustice" to the applicant. The English courts have consistently emphasised the exceptional nature of this remedy and the high bar that must be cleared.
(c) Section 69 — Appeal on Point of Law: A party may appeal to the court on a question of law arising out of an award, but only with the leave of the court (or the agreement of the parties). The court will only grant leave if it is satisfied that: (i) the determination of the question will substantially affect the rights of one or more of the parties; (ii) the question is one which the tribunal was asked to determine; (iii) on the basis of the findings of fact in the award, the decision of the tribunal on the question is either obviously wrong, or the question is one of general public importance and the decision of the tribunal is at least open to serious doubt; and (iv) it is just and proper in all the circumstances for the court to determine the question.
Both section 68 and section 69 challenges must be brought within 28 days of the date of the award, or such further time as the court may allow. The Award was issued on 28 June 2024. The 28-day deadline therefore expires on 26 July 2024. KMH must file any challenge application by that date, unless it applies for and obtains an extension of time.
The LCIA Rules 2020 Exclusion of Section 69 Appeals
A critically important preliminary point is whether the LCIA Rules 2020 constitute an agreement to exclude the right of appeal under section 69. Article 26.8 of the LCIA Rules 2020 provides:
"Every award (including reasons for such award) shall be final and binding on the parties. The parties undertake to carry out any award immediately and without any delay (subject only to Article 27); and the parties also waive irrevocably their right to any form of appeal, review or recourse to any state court or other legal authority, insofar as such waiver shall not be prohibited under any applicable law."
This provision has been considered by the English courts in a number of decisions. The weight of authority strongly supports the conclusion that Article 26.8 constitutes an effective agreement to exclude the right of appeal under section 69, within the meaning of section 69(1) of the Act. In Telenor Mobile Communications AS v. Storm LLC [2006] EWCA Civ 735, the Court of Appeal endorsed the principle that the parties' agreement to LCIA arbitration, incorporating the LCIA Rules, is sufficient to exclude the right of appeal. This has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions.
Accordingly, we consider it highly likely that any application by KMH for leave to appeal under section 69 will be refused on the preliminary ground that the right of appeal has been excluded by agreement. This effectively leaves section 68 as the only available challenge route.
6.2 Anticipated KMH Grounds — Section 68 (Serious Irregularity)
Based on our assessment of the Award and our knowledge of Harkness Whitford's approach during the arbitration, we anticipate that KMH may advance the following grounds under section 68:
6.2.1 Failure to Deal with All Issues (Section 68(2)(d))
Section 68(2)(d) provides that there is a serious irregularity where the tribunal has "failed to deal with all the issues that were put to it." KMH may argue that the tribunal failed to adequately address:
(a) KMH's defences in respect of the off-hire deductions for the M/V Volga Spirit, including its contention that the deductions were supported by the vessel's operational records and the reports of the attending classification society surveyor; and
(b) the quantification of the market differential damages, including KMH's argument that the tribunal's expert assessment was flawed in its selection of comparator charter fixtures and its treatment of the Baltic Exchange indices.
Assessment: This ground has a very low probability of success. The English courts have consistently held that section 68(2)(d) requires the tribunal to deal