The wording of the clause did not expressly state “no adverse currents,” which may distinguish this case from previous awards on similar points. It also highlights that trivial differences in fuel specification may not bar a claim against the Owners in particular, as there was a significant loss of time; thus, the vessel’s good weather speed was considerably below her warranted speed. Further, expert evidence may be adduced to prove that trivial differences in fuel specification were not causative to the vessel’s underperformance.*This is only a commentary on the published summary. The reader should visit the LMLN website to read the published summary.