Therefore, in the present case, the tribunal erred in law in awarding damages for the Shipowner’s wasted expenditure. The earnings made by the Shipowner from the substitute employment “more than recuperated the losses” it claimed. Those earnings not only expunged the loss of earnings it suffered as a result of the Charterer’s breach of contract, but also the wasted expenses. No damages should have been awarded, and the Charterer’s appeal was allowed.

This decision is an attempt to settle the debate on the justification for reliance damages under English law. Comments in cases like Anglia TV that a claimant can elect between a claim for reliance damages and a claim for expectation damages create an impression that these are two different ways of awarding damages. This is also the opinion of Treitel in a case note cited by the Court: (1992) 108 LQR 229.