THE NATIONWIDE ACADEMY FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION (UK) Ltd.  
   
   
Home   About us   About ADR   NADR Services   Publications
 
   
  Forms   Members   Forums   Links   NMA
 
     
       
   
• Adjudication
• Adjudication Federal Australia
• Adjudication Law Reports
• Adjudication Law Reports 1999
• Adjudication Law Reports 2000
• Adjudication Law Reports 2001
• Adjudication Law Reports 2002
• Adjudication Law Reports 2003
• Adjudication Law Reports 2004
• Adjudication Law Reports 2005
• Adjudication Law Reports 2006
• Adjudication Law Reports 2007
• Adjudication Law Reports 2008
• Adjudication Law Reports Index
• Adjudication New South Wales
• Adjudication New Zealand
• Adjudication Northern Territory
• Adjudication Queensland
• Adjudication Singapore
• Adjudication South Australia
• Adjudication Tasmania
• Adjudication Victoria
• Adjudication Western Australia
• ADR Law Reports
• ADR Law Reports 1997
• ADR Law Reports 1998
• ADR Law Reports 1999
• ADR Law Reports 2000
• ADR Law Reports 2001
• ADR Law Reports 2002
• ADR Law Reports 2003
• ADR Law Reports 2004
• ADR Law Reports 2005
• ADR Law Reports 2006
• ADR Law Reports 2007
• ADR Law Reports 2008
• ADR Law Reports Index
• Alernative Dispute Resolution
• Arbitration
• Arbitration Law Reports 1996
• Arbitration Law Reports 1997
• Arbitration Law Reports 1998
• Arbitration Law Reports 1999
• Arbitration Law Reports 2000
• Arbitration Law Reports 2001
• Arbitration Law Reports 2002
• Arbitration Law Reports 2003
• Arbitration Law Reports 2004
• Arbitration Law Reports 2005
• Arbitration Law Reports 2006
• Arbitration Law Reports 2007
• Arbitration Law Reports 2008
• Arbitration Law Reports Index
• Arbitration Older Reports
• Banking
• Commercial Law Reports 1997
• Commercial Law Reports 1998
• Commercial Law Reports 1999
• Commercial Law Reports 2000
• Commercial Law Reports 2001
• Commercial Law Reports 2002
• Commercial Law Reports 2003
• Commercial Law Reports 2004
• Commercial Law Reports 2005
• Commercial Law Reports 2006
• Commercial Law Reports 2007
• Commercial Law Reports 2008
• Commercial Law Reports Index
• Conflicts of Law
• Constitution Law Reports
• Constitutional Law
• Construction
• Construction Law Reports
• Construction Law Reports 2000
• Construction Law Reports 2001
• Construction Law Reports 2002
• Construction Law Reports 2003
• Construction Law Reports 2004
• Construction Law Reports 2005
• Construction Law Reports 2006
• Construction Law Reports 2007
• Construction Law Reports 2008
• Construction Law Reports Index
• Dispute Review Boards
• Education
• Employment
• Intellectual Property
• Legal Research
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Mediation
• Medical
• Private International Law
• Public International Law
• Public Law
• Shipping & Trade
• Sports Law
• Who's Who

Login
Username

Password



View a printer friendly version of this page.
 
A v B [2006] APP.L.R. 07/28
Termination of arbitral proceedings: Family arbitration. Whether, given that the seat of the arbitration was indisputably Geneva, the court should decline to exercise the jurisdiction it has over the tribunal in respect of the claims against the arbitrator as an appropriate arbitrator under a void or rescinded arbitration agreement and as to the various personal claims for damages for breach of his various alleged duties to A.Commercial Court. 28th July 2007
by Mr Justice Colman : Crown Copyright

ABB Ag v Hochtief Airport GmbH [2006] APP.L.R. 03/08
Challenge s68 serious irregularity; Failed section 68 challenge to an award. QBD Commercial Court. 8th March 2006.
by Mr Justice Tomlinson : Crown Copyright

Abu Dhabi Investment Co v H Clarkson & Co Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 05/26
Stay to arbitration s9: Application for stay to arbitration in the UAE. Court held that since arbitration as opposed to litigation in the UAE, of a dispute not related to the execution of a contract, is permissive, not compulsory, this amounted to an application for a stay to litigation in the UAE. Accordingly the application was refused. QBD Commercial Court. 26th May 2006.
by Mr Justice Morison, Crown Copyright

Aer Lingus v Gildacroft Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 4
Limitation : Contribution : The two year limitation period under s10 Limitation Act 1980 pursuant to the Civil Liability Contribution Act 1978 runs from a determination of both entitlement and quantum, and not from a judgement on entitlement alone. CA. 17th January 2006.
by Sir Anthony Clarke MR ; Rix LJ ; Moore-Bick LJ; Crown Copyright

Allen John Lloyd v Staffan Svenby [2006] APP.L.R. 03/21
Costs : Rationale for an order of costs on indemnity basis : Losing claimant forced the defendant into unwanted litigation. QBD. 21st March 2006
by Mr Justice Stanley Burnton : Crown Copyright.

Andromeda Marine SA v OW Bunker & Trading A/S [2006] APP.L.R. 04/11
Negative Injunction : Claimant's - third parties ship owners to a charterer's contract for bunkers from the defendant sought a declaration / injunction that no action lay against them as third parties. Main action was before the Danish Court. Held : Court had no jurisdiction. If at all, this action should be pursued before the Danish Court. Commercial Court. 11th April 2006.
by His Honour Judge Morison : Crown Copyright

Antec International Ltd v Biosafety USA Inc [2006] APP.L.R. 01/27
Forum non conveniens : Previously established that English Law and Jurisdiction applied. Owusu v Jackson (1 March 2005, Case No C-281/02). considered. Commercial Court. 27th January 2006.
by Mrs Justice Gloster : Crown Copyright

Ashton Investments Ltd v OJSC Russian Aluminium (Rusal) [2006] APP.L.R. 10/18
Application for set aside on grounds that other party had hacked into a computer and gained access to privileged legal information in relation to the case. Commercial Court. 18th October 2006.
by Deputy Judge Jonathon Hurst QC : Crown Copyright

ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Ltd of England [2006] APP.L.R. 10/16
Challenge s68(4) serious irregularity: The apparent bias was said to arise because on a previous occasion the umpire, in his capacity as leading counsel had been instructed by a ship owner in an earlier case in respect of an allegation that the opposite party was or might be concealing relevant documents. The umpire was not counsel in the case but was instructed on that application. The umpire had had no contact with the owner. The owner appeared as witness for the respondent in the instant case. The matter was raised late. The umpire declined to recuse himself. The parties continued the arbitration without recourse to a s24 application for removal. They unsuccessfully appealed. This further CA appeal also failed. CA. 16th October 2006.
by Clarke MR ; Rix LJ ; Longmore LJ : Crown Copyright

Axa Re v Ace Global Markets Ltd. [2006] APP.L.R. 01/20
Jurisdiction; Reinsuance slip contained a choice of law and jurisdiction clause but also incorporated terms of a contract containing an arbitration clause : Which prevailed? Held : applying Paul Smith v H&S International Holding Inc [1991] 2 Lloyd\'s Law Rep at 127 that the arbitration clause prevailed.Application by Axa for a declaration under section 72(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996 that a reinsurance contract between Axa and Ace Global Markets does not, on its true construction, include an arbitration agreement. The application also seeks injunctive relief to restrain Ace from continuing arbitration proceedings, instituted by it against Axa. Commercial Court. 20th January 2006.
by Mrs Justice Gloster : Crown Copyright

Bandwith Shipping Corp. v Intaari [2006] APP.L.R. 10/17
Challenge s68(2) remit for reconsideration. Application pursuant to s68(2)(a) Arbitration Act 1996 ("the Act") for an order that the Court should remit for reconsideration an award of an arbitral tribunal on the ground that there has been a serious irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration in that the Tribunal failed to comply with its duty under section 33 of the Act. Issue : Whether a finding of fact challengeable on the basis that party there was no opportunity to address the issue at the hearing. Held : No. Commercial Court. 17th October 2006.
by Mr Justice Christopher Clarke : Crown Copyright

Best Beat Ltd v Rossall [2006] APP.L.R. 03/10
S9 Stay : Lease : Application for stay : Held : 1) the parties must request arbitration 2) it had to be a dispute arising out of the lease. Neither applied application refused. Chancery. 10th March 2006.
by Park J : Crown Copyright

Bulk Trading SA v Moeller [2006] APP.L.R. 09/14
Costs of application to set aside : Unsuccessful appeal against an order refusing costs in respect of a successful application to set aside an award for absence of proper notice s72 : on grounds that whilst notice absent the applicants were largely responsible for the omission. CA. 14th September 2006.
by Waller LJ : Longmore LJ : Crown Copyright

CBR (Wakefield) Ltd v Puccino\'s Ltd (2) [2006] APP.L.R. 10/30
Admissibility of further evidence following issuing of draft judgement. Chancery. 30th October 2006
by HHJ John Behrens. Crown Copyright

Celtic Resources Holdings v Arduina Holding BV [2006] APP.L.R. 09/11
Freezing injunction : A lodged an appeal against an arbitral award after it had been the subject of an enforcement action. A freezing order to prevent dissipation of funds was granted : application to extend refused ? failure to demonstrate a real possibility of dissipation. Appeals under s67-69 pending. Commercial Court. 11th September 2006.
by Mr Justice Christopher Clarke : Crown Copyright

CGU International Insurance Plc v Astrazeneca Insurance Co Ltd. [2006] APP.L.R 10/16
Challenge s69(8): Residual grounds to consider an appeal : North Range Shipping Ltd v. Seatrans Shipping Corporation [2002] EWCA Civ 405 : considered but distinguished on facts. CA. 16th October 2006.
by Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Rix LJ ; Longmore LJ : Crown Copyright

Co-Operative Group (CWS) Ltd v Stansell Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 05/09
Challenge s69 point of law : Challenge to the interpretation of s51(1) Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 upheld. CA. 9th May 2006.
by Mummery LJ; Longmore LJ; Jacob LJ. Crown Copyright

Compania Sud American Vapores v Hamburg [2006] APP.L.R. 03/14
Challenge s69 point of law or fact? Arbitrators found as a fact that loss was due to negligence in operation of the vessel : bunkers overheated, damaging cargo and hence charterer not liable under Art IV HVR. Appellants sought to establish that overheating of bunkers next to a cargo is negligence in care and handling of cargo and a breach of Art III had arisen. Court held this was a challenge to fact not law. Arbitrators had applied the correct test scrupulously. Gosse Millard [1929] applied. QBD Commercial Court. 14th March 2006.
by Mr Justice Morison : Crown Copyright

Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v General Dental Council [2006] APP.L.R. 07/24
Requirements in respect of reasoned decisions from the General Dental Council. QBD Admin Division. 24th July 2006.
by Mr Justice Hodge : Crown Copyright

Dadourian Group Int Inc v Simms [2006] APP.L.R. 04/11
World Wide Freezing Order. CA laid down Guidelines to be known as the Dadourian Guidelines for the granting of a WWF or Worldwide Mareva Injunction. CA. 11th April 2006.
by Ward LJ; Arden LJ; Moore-Bick LJ. Crown Copyright

Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms No2 [2006] APP.L.R. 12/20
World wide freezing orders : Failed appeal against a freezing order. CA. 20th December 2006.
by Chancellor : Arden LJ : Longmore LJ; Crown Copyright

Dene Construction Ltd v Antshire Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 01/13
Sham contract ? legal personality : Whether or not a contract was a sham to hide true identity of contractual partners. Held : Not a sham ? case to proceed. Note case had already been preceded by two adjudications. TCC. 13th October 2006.
by His Honour John Toulmin : Crown Copyright

Department of Civil Aviation of the Kyrgyz Republic v Finrep GmbH [2006] APP.L.R. 05/22
Challenge s67 Jurisdiction : Challenge to preliminary award on jurisdiction : Challenges to the identity of the respondents viz the Civil Aviation Auhority and to whether the state was a party to arbitration. Fact of case not disclosed to respect privacy of the parties. Commercial Court. 22nd May 2006.
by Mr Justice Tomlinson : Crown Copyright

Donnelly v Weybridge Construction Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 02/24
Security : Claimant in dispute with property owner over construction claims. Owner wished to sell. Applicant sought either security of costs from defendant and or a notice placed against the properties in the land register. Applications Refused.24th February 2006.
by His Honour Judge Peter Coulson. Crown Copyright.

Dornoch Ltd & Ors v Mauritius Union Assurance Company Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 04/10
Forum : Choice of Forum : Conflicts : Reinsurance Dispute. CA. 10th April 2006.
by Sir Mark Potter : Tuckey LJ : May LJ : Crown Copyright

DWR Cymru Cyfyngedig (Welsh Water) v Corus UK Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 05/26
Jurisdiction ? public law : Under a water supply contract, rates for option to renew to be negotiated or settled by arbitration. Otherwise rates to be determined by Director General of Water. At renewal time the DGW set the new rate and DWR sought summary judgment for sums due. Public law challenge to jurisdiction of DGW upheld. This was a private law dispute, not an abuse of process to challenge jurisdiction in favour of arbitration. QBD Chancery Division. 26th May 2006.
by Mr Justice Hart, Crown Copyright

Econet Satellite Services Ltd. v Vee Networks Ltd No2 [2006] APP.L.R. 07/13
Challenge s67 Jurisdiction : No jurisdiction to deal with set off under the contract : Applicants confused the scope clause under UNCITRAL re procedure with the substantive law of the contract. QBD Commercial Court. 13th July 2006.
by Mr Justice Field : Crown Copyright

Econet Wireless Ltd v Vee Networks Ltd No1 [2006] APP.L.R. 06/28
Injunction s44 lifted : Ex parte injunction in support of overseas arbitration lifted. Other party had no notice. Court provided with insufficient information at first instance. It is only in extra-ordinary situations that a court will injunct in respect of overseas arbitral proceedings. Nigeria was the appropriate forum of the arbitration. QBD Commercial Court. 28th June 2006.
by Mr Justice Morison : Crown Copyright

Ecuador v Occidental Exploration & Production Co [2006] APP.L.R. 03/02
Challenge s67 & 68 : Jurisdiction to deal with taxation excluded. Did this extend to application for return of VAT. Held No. QBD Commercial Court. 2nd March 2006.
by Mr Justice Aikens : Crown Copyright

Essex County Council v Premier Recycling Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 03/09
Challenge s69 : Firstly, did the terms of appointment exclude a right to appeal? Held : No. Secondly, had the arbitrator erred in law. Held : No. Appeal dismissed. TCC. 9th March 2006.
by Mr Justice Ramsey : Crown Copyright

Exfin Shipping (India) Ltd v Tolani Shipping Co Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 05/17
Challenge s67 Jurisdiction : Meaning of and existence of a dispute. The Halki applied. Challenge failed. Commercial Court. 17th May 2006.
by Mr Justice Langley : Crown Copyright

F (children), Re [2006] APP.L.R. 05/18
Reasoned judgment : This judgment is so lacking in reasoning and substance that it presents at least an appearance not to have engaged fully with the important issues that were being ventilated before the learned judge and that it is wholly deficient in explanations as to how or why he has arrived at the conclusions that he has. CA. 18th May 2006.
by Thorpe LJ; Moses LJ; Mr Justice Hedley. Crown Copyright

Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov [2006] APP.L.R. 10/20
Stay to arbitration : Application to stay to arbitration refused. Commercial Court. 20th October 2006.
by Mr Justice Morrison : Crown Copyright

Fulham Leisure Holdings Ltd v Nicholson Graham & Jones [2006] APP.L.R. 10/05
Costs : Costs thrown away - one party caused delay but delay of benefit to the other - no costs award : if costs to follow the event - who actually won ? distinction between liability and quantum : 5th October 2006.
by Mr Justice Mann. Crown Copyright

Galaxy Special Maritime Enterprise v Prima Ceylon Ltd MV "Olympic Galaxy" [2006] APP.L.R. 05/03
Jurisdiction - conflicts : General average claim : By a letter of undertaking parties agreed to settle disputes either by arbitration or before the High Court Sri Lanka. It is clear the applicable substantive law is English Law. Parties submitted to but then abandoned an arbitration. CA held that in the circumstances there is no overriding reason for an English Court to deal with events that took place in Sri Lankan waters, particularly since the Sri Lankan court was already dealing with the matter. CA. 3rd May 2006.
by Mummery LJ; Buxton LJ. Longmore LJ.

General Medical Council v Meadow [2006] APP.L.R. 10/26
Duty of Expert witness to the Court : Whether incorrect opinion can give rise to a charge of professional misconduct. Unsucessful appeal. 26th October 2006.
by Sir Anthony Clarke MR; Auld LJ; Thorpe LJ. Crown Copyright

Gold Coast Ltd. v Naval Gijon SA [2006] APP.L.R. 05/15
Extension of time to correct error s79 & s57 : Tribunal admitted an award contained an error but held that since the 21 day period under s57 had passed it was an issue for the court to deal with. Successful application under s79 to apply retrospectively for extension of time, thereby enabling the tribunal to correct the error. QBD Commercial Court. 15th May 2006.
by Mrs Justice Gloster : Crown Copyright

Gorne v Scales [2006] APP.L.R. 03/29
Expert opinion : Court held that the method of valuing a directory proposed by an expert witness and adopted by the court was not a viable valuation mechanism. CA. 29th March 2006.
by Ward LJ; Arden LJ; Moore-Bick LJ. Crown Copyright

Gort-Barten v M A Cherrington Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 11/08
Costs agreement : Costs of Appeal : Where parties reach an agreement as to costs of an arbitration, that agreement will extend to costs of appeal. Thus where agreement that each party bear its arbitration costs is concluded, the winning party to an appeal cannot recover costs of the appeal. TCC. 8th November 2006.
by Mr Justice Ramsay : Crown Copyright

Goshawk Dedicated Ltd v ROP Inc [2006] APP.L.R. 07/12
Jurisdiction : Anti-suit injunction : Injunction successfully applied for to prevent party pursuing an action to strike out arbitration proceedings before the Georgia Court. QBD Commercial Court. 12th July 2006.
by Mr Justice Morison, Crown Copyright

Gus Consulting GmbH v Leboeuf Lamb Greene & Macrae [2006]APP.L.R. 05/26
Confidentiality - disclosure : Failed appeal against a refusal to grant an injunction pursuant to s44(2)(e) Arbitration Act to prevent a law firm with members that had prior knowledge from acting for one of the parties. Adequate Chinese walls in place. CA. 26th May 2006.
by Brooke LJ : Mummery LJ : Scott Baker LJ : Crown Copyright

Halpern v Halpern [2006] APP.L.R. 03/24
Duress : Beth Din Concilliation / Arbitration settlement of a disputed succession arrangements. Whether settlement procures by duress. Jurisdiction : Relevant Law - including status of Jewish Law. Commercial Court. 24th March 2006.
by Mr Justice Christopher Clarke. Crown Copyright.

Harper Versicherungs AG v Indemnity Marine Assurance Company Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 06/23
Legal identity : parties to arbitration : Due to Part VII FSA 2000 mergers the names of parties to an arbitration were not accurately stated. Parties had issued a deed acknowledging submission to an arbitration to settle what was due under reinsurance contracts. Held : There was no need to institute fresh arbitrations for every name change. Arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine accounts between the parties. QBD Commercial Court. 23rd June 2006.
by Mr Justice Tomlinson : Crown Copyright

Horn Linie GmbH & Co v Panamericana Formas E Impresos SA [2006] APP.L.R. 03/06
Choice of Law : Conflict : UK or Columbian Law. Whether HVR apply. Anti-suit injunction. Commercial Court. 6th March 2006.
by Mr Justice Morison. Crown Copyright

Independent Petroleum Group Ltd v Seacarriers Count Pte Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 12/12
Challenge s69 : In determining whether a port is unsafe for the purposes of a safe port warranty in a voyage charterparty, is the relevant question whether the port is unsafe for the chartered vessel itself or is it sufficient for the owners to show that the port is unsafe for other vessels? Held : Port prospectively unsafe - appeal dismissed. Commercial Court. 12th December 2006.
by Mr Justice Toulson : Crown Copyright

Jones v. Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [2006] APP.L.R. 06/14
Conflicts : State immunity : Whether the English court has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings brought here by claimants against a foreign state and its officials at whose hands the claimants say that they suffered systematic torture, in the territory of the foreign state. House of Lords. 14th June 2006.
by Lords Bingham ; Hoffmann; Rodger; Walker; Carswell : Crown Copyright

Kallang Shipping SA v Axa Assurances Senegal [2006] APP.L.R. 11/07
Anti-suit injunction : Failed application to lift an anti-suit injunction in respect of court proceedings in Dakar in favour of an LCIA arbitration. Commercial Court. 7th November 2006.
by Mrs Justice Gloster : Crown Copyright

Kanoria v Guinness [2006] APP.L.R. 02/21
Challenge : s103 A.A. 1996. Party not notified of arbitration. Could not defend himself. Award unenforceable. CA. 21st February 2006.
by Lord Phillips MR.Sir Anthony Clarke; May LJ. Crown Copyright

Kershaw Mechanical Services Ltd v Kendrick Construction Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 03/02
Challenge : S69. Had the arbitrator made an error of law in the interpretation of the provisions of a construction contract. Held : No. Appeal failed. TCC. 2nd March 2006
by Mr Justice Jackson : Crown Copyright.

Knight v Beyond Properties Pty Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 05/26
Costs - capping : Application to court to make a capping order analogous to that under s65 Arbitration Act. Order refused ? but costing judge could take issues into account if costs spiralled. Such an order might be possible in other circumstances. QBD Chancery Division. 26th May 2006.
by Mr Justice Mann : Crown Copyright

Konkola Copper Mines Plc v Coromin Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 01/17
Stay to foreign jurisdiction : Unsuccessful appeal against refusal of application to stay to foreign jurisdiction. CA. 17th January 2006.
by Sir Anthony Clarke MR. Rix LJ ; Richards LJ : Crown Copyright

Kuenyehia v International Hospitals Group Ltd. [2006] EWCA Civ 21
Notice : Service : Claim form : CPR : Service of Claim Form regarding claims arising out of a contract for the provision of construction contract procurement : Procedures for service of claim form set out in CPR to be strictly adhered to : Impact of limitation time bar on failure to make an effective service. CA. 25th January 2006.
by Waller LJ; Dyson LJ; Neuberger LJ. Crown Copyright

Legal Services Commission v Aaronson No1 [2006] APP.L.R. 05/24
Disclosure application : LSC applied for disclosure of all public files of Law Firm to establish sums due to the Commission. Account disputes subject to arbitration. The firm were only prepared to disclose files within the arbitral process, not outside or independent of it. The LSC wanted disclosure to enable it to negotiate a settlement. Disclosure refused. The LSC would get all it was entitled to within the arbitration. QBD. 24th May 2006.
by Mr Justice Jack : Crown Copyright

Leibinger v Stryker Trauma GmbH [2006]APP.L.R. 03/31
Challenge : s67 Arbitration Act : Curial Law - England or Germany? Commercial Court. 31st March 2006.
by Mr Justice Cooke. Crown Copyright

London Borough of Southwark v Kofi-Adu [2006] APP.L.R. 03/23
Role of Judge ? examination in chief : Natural Justice : It is the job of counsel not the trial judge to conduct examination in chief. CA. 23rd March 2006.
by Laws LJ; Jonathan Parker LJ : Sir Martin Nourse.

Malaba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] ADR.L.R. 06/21
Reasons : Inadequate : Immigration ; Reasons inconsistent : inadequate reasons fatal to the enforcement of the decision of the immigration adjudicator. Decision quashed. CA. 21st JUne 2006.
by Pill LJ, Dyson LJ ; Hallett LJ. Crown Copyright

Manchester City Council v Muir [2006] APP.L.R. 03/20
Challenge : Serious irregularity : court proceedings; Serious irregularity by the court in respect of an ASBO. CA. 23rd March 2006.
by May LJ; Keene LJ; Waller LJ. Crown Copyright

McLoughlin v Jones [2006] APP.L.R. 07/05
Reasons for decisions reviewed. Criminal Appeal - but general principles apply to civil actions and to arbitration. English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 605 considered. CA : 5th July 2006
by Pill LJ; Arden LJ; Neuberger LJ.

Meadow v General Medical Council [2006] APP.L.R. 02.17
Expert Witness : Appeal against disciplinary action by GMC for Breach of Professional Duty as an expert witness : Even where an expert witness acted in good faith and there was no evidence of calculated or wilful failure to use his best endeavours to provide evidence a finding of serious professional misconduct is not precluded but it will only be in a very rare case that such a finding will be justified. 17th February 2006.
by Mr Justice Collins. Crown Copyright

Messer Griesheim GmbH v Goyal MG Gases Pvt Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 02/07
Summary judgement : Applicant sought summary judgement in lieu of a default judgement since the latter was unenforceable in India. In the circumstances there were no grounds for a valid defence and accordingly summary judgement entered. Commercial Court. 7th February 2006.
by Mr Justice Langley : Crown Copyright

Morrison v AWG Group Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 01/20
Conflict of Interests : Bias : The trial judge admitted that he would have difficulty ruling on the character of a potential witness : CA held that the option of calling alternative witnesses to save the judge embarassment was prejudicial to the defendants. Accordingly the judge should recuse himself. 20th January 2006.
by Mummery LJ, Latham LJ, Carnwath LJ. Crown Copyright

National Grid Gas Plc v Lafarge Aggregates Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 10/18
Challenge : question of law : Appeal : question of law ? whether lost profit recoverable under the deed. Chancery Division. 18th October 2006.
by Cooke Mr Justice

Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Tank [2006] APP.L.R. 05/12
Removal s24 : s69 irregularity. Private communications : Natural Justice : The role of the arbitrator in gathering evidence : Undisclosed contact by arbitrator with witnesses not allowed. Arbitrator removed under s24. QBD Commercial Court. 12th May 2006.
by Mr Justice Colman : Crown Copyright

Oceanografia SA DE CV v DSND Subsea AS [2006] APP.L.R. 06/12
Challenge s67 jurisdiction : Unsuccessful challenge to jurisdiction of tribunal : waiver and submission to proceedings. QBD Commercial Court. 12th June 2006.
by Mr Justice Aikens : Crown Copyright

Oxford Architects Partnership v Cheltenham Ladies College [2006] APP.L.R. 11/17
Challenge s69 : Successful challenge against award on the grounds that the claims were statute barred. TCC. 17th November 2006.
by Mr Justice Ramsey : Crown Copyright

Park Lane Ventures Ltd v Locke [2006] APP.L.R. 06/29
A s9 stay to arbitration application was subsequently withdrawn : The application was supported by documents. The court held that the submission of these documents in support of the original application provided evidence, for the purposes of this litigation, that both parties intended the documents to have legal force. Chancery. 29th June 2006.
by Deputy Judge John Randall QC. Crown Copyright

Pentonville Shipping Ltd. v Transfield Shipping Inc (MV Johnny K) [2006] APP.L.R. 02/10
Challenge s69 Point of Law; The court determined that there is no clearly and consistently expressed finding by the arbitrators on the critical question by whom the order to sail was in fact given. With that in mind the issue was remitted to the arbitrators for consideration. The court noted that having complied with that instruction, it was open to the arbitrators to vary or reconfirm the award. A chartered vessel sailed without loading a full cargo. It would appear that the order to sail came from the port authority since the vessel would have had to remain in port for 3 weeks to get a high enough tide to turn in order to leave. The court remitted the award to the tribunal to address the issue of who was responsible for the order rather that who gave the order. QBD Commercial Court. 10th February 2006.
by Mr Justice Tomlinson, Crown Copyright

Persimmon Homes (North West) Ltd. v The First Secretary of State [2006] APP.L.R. 10/25
Reasons : Planning application : Sufficient and adequate reasons provided for the planning decision. Administrative Court. 25th October 2006.
by Mr Justice Bean : Crown Copyright

Port Regis School Ltd., R v Gillingham & Shaftesbury Agricultural Society [2006] APP.L.R. 04/05
Bias ? free masonry : In the circumstances the fact that two councillors were free masons did not amount to bias or taint planning decisions of the council. Administrative Court. 5th April 2006.
by Mr Justice Newman : Crown Copyright

Promar International Ltd v Clarke [2006] APP.L.R. 04/04
Costs : Parties compromised the action and settled. Judge refused an order of costs on the basis that there were no winners or losers. Claimant unsuccessfully appealed the order on costs. CA. 4th April 2006.
by Hallett LJ : Mr Justice Bennett.

Ravennavi Spa v New Century Shipbuilding Company Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 04/04
Stay to arbitration : ?An Entire agreement? contract which contained an arbitration clause replaced a prior agreement that contained a litigation clause. Application to serve out of jurisdiction withdrawn. QBD Commercial Court. 4th April 2006.
by Mrs Justice Gloster : Crown Copyright

Republic of Kazakhstan v Istil Group Inc [2006] APP.L.R. 04/03
Challenge : Application to set aside : Arbitration Act s67. QBD. Commercial Division. 3rd April 2006.
by Mr Justice David Steel : Crown Copyright

RG (Ethiopia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] APP.L.R. 04/04
Reasons IAT : Insufficient / inadequate reasons on a particular issue remitted to the IAT for further consideration. CA. 4th April 2006.
by Pill LJ; Keene LJ: Wilson Mr Justice : Crown Copyright

Robert Phipps v General Medical Council [2006] APP.L.R. 04/12
Reasons for decisions : Standard required of the GMC. CA. 12th April 2006.
by Sir Mark Potter : Arden LJ; Wall LJ. Crown Copyright

Sea Trade Maritime Corp v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Assoc (Bermuda) Ltd . [2006] APP.L.R. 02.24
Costs : s47 & 57 : Reservation to subsequent award. Where a tribunal reserves costs to a subsequent award it deals with the matter (s47) so that the provisions of s57 do not come into play. Commercial Court. 24th February 2006.
by Mr Justice Christopher Clarke

Secretary of State for Transport v Pell Frischmann Consultants Ltd No1 [2006] Adj.L.R. 10/23
Disclosure ? 3rd party : Application for disclosure against a non-party in support of litigation post arbitration. In the circumstances whilst early disclosure might be beneficial to the applicant, disclosure would be made in due course but there was no compelling reason why the applicant should benefit from early disclosure given the cost that would be involved in double disclosure. TCC. 23rd October 2006.
by Mr Justice Jackson : Crown Copyright

Secretary of State for Transport v Pell Frischmann Consultants Ltd. No2 [2006] APP.L.R. 11/13
Successful application to amend statements of claim out of time. TCC. 13th November 2006.
by Mr Justice Jackson : Crown Copyright

Sinclair v Woods of Winchester Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 11/22
Challenge s69 : Substance of both grounds of appeal are based on findings of fact and causation ? not law. Upheld clarity of award ? appeal failed. TCC. 22nd November 2006.
by His Honour Judge Peter Coulson QC : Crown Copyright

Smith v Kvaerner Cementation Foundations Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 03/21
Bias : Recorder was from the same chambers as counsel for one of the parties and had acted for related firms : CA allowed an appeal - setting aside the recorder's decision because of an appearance of bias. Also deals with appeal out of time. CA. 21st March 2006.
by Phillips LCJ, Sir Anthony Clarke MR: May LJ. Crown Copyright

Snookes v Jani-King (GB) Ltd. [2006] APP.L.R. 02/23
Jurisdiction : (Practice & Procedure : Non-construction) : Franchise contract specified that claims be brought before a competent court in London. Claims commenced in Swansea District Registry. Held : Swansea did not have jurisdiction : Claims could not be transferred - they had to be withdrawn and re-commenced in London. NB : Once commenced in London, a claim could be transferred. QBD. Swansea District Registry. 23rd February 2006.
by The Honourable Mr Justice Silber. Crown Copyright

Stretford v Football Association Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 03/17
Human Rights : Arbitration agreement amounts to a waiver of Art 6 Right to a public trial. Chancery. 17th March 2006
by Sir Andrew Morrit. Crown Copyright

Sukuman Ltd v The Commonwealth Secretariat [2006] APP.L.R. 02/27
Challenge : s69 Arbitration Act 1996 : Contractual term excluding appeal not contrary to Human Rights Act. Commercial Court. 27th February 2006.
by His Honour Judge Colman. Crown Copyright

Svenska Petroleum Exploration AB v Lithuania [2006] APP.L.R. 11/13
Personality : Was the State of Lithuania a party to a commercial contract and an arbitration agreement : appeal against an enforcement of award action. In the circumstances State was a party. Award enforceable. CA. 13th November 2006.
by Sir Anthony Clarke MR : Scott Baker LJ ; Moore-Bick LJ : Crown Copyright

Tajik Aluminium Plant v Abdukadir Ganievich Ermatov [2006] APP.L.R. 07/28
Jurisdiction; Application to set aside Part 20 proceedings for lack of jurisdiction dismissed. Admonition regarding lost costs. Commercial Court. 28th July 2006.
by Mr Justice Cresswell : Crown Copyright

Tavoulareas v Tsavliris [2006] APP.L.R. 03/09
Conflicts : Question as to whether English or Greek court was seized of action, and status of the determination of the Greek Court, the CA having previously declared that the English Court had jurisdiction. QBD Commercial Court. 9th March 2006.
by Mr Justice Tomlimson, Crown Copyright

Taylor Woodrow Holdings Ltd v George Wimpey Southern Counties Ltd Rev 1 [2006] APP.L.R. 07/03
Determination of question of law s45 :Court, in support of arbitral proceedings, determined that the employer did not undertake the risk of structural problems in a bridge prior to architectural survey. TCC. 3rd July 2006.
by Mr Justice Jackson : Crown Copyright

Tehrani v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Scotland) [2006] APP.L.R. 10/18
Jurisdiction : Appeal from IAT : Whether English or Scottish court had jurisdiction over appeal / judicial review of IAT. House of Lords. 18th October 2006.
by Lords Nicholls , Hope, Scott, Rodger, Carswell : Crown Copyright

Three (3) C Waste Ltd v Mersey Waste Holdings Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 10/24
Declarations. Applications for declarations in respect of recovery of certain costs in support of arbitration. Commercial Court. 24th October 2006
by Mr Justice David Steel : Crown Copyright

Tonkin v UK Insurance (No 2) [2006] APP.L.R. 05/18
Costs : Payment in : Whilst successful in the litigation, the claimants failed to beat a payment in. Costs - allegations of unreasonable behaviour rejected. Costs to follow the event. TCC. 18th May 2006.
by His Honour Judge Peter Coulson : Crown Copyright

Transfield Shipping Inc of Panama v Mercator Shipping Inc of Monrovia [2006] APP.L.R. 12/01
Challenge s69 : Appeal against the basis of damages award. Held ?To award damages in this case on the basis of the difference between the market and the charter rate for the overrun would compensate the Owners for only a fraction of the true loss caused by the breach. In compensating them for the whole of it the majority did not, in my judgement, err in law. I shall, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.? Commercial Court. 1st December 2006.
by Mr Justice ChristopherClarke : Crown Copyright

Vertex Data Science Ltd v Powergen Retail Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 06/09
Injunctive relief : Arbitration clause withheld jurisdiction of arbitrators to grant injunctive relief. Could the court grant it in any case? In the circumstances a mandatory injunction forcing parties to work together was not workable. Relief denied. Potential of conflict between determinations of the court and the tribunal undermining value of award. QBD Commercial Court. 9th June 2006.
by Tomlinson Mr Justice

Viggers, R (on the application of) v Pensions Appeal Tribunal [2006] EWHC 1066 (Admin)
Brief & inadequate reasons for decision. "The decisions reached must be regarded as irrational in the sense that no proper reasoning has been provided to justify them. I do not necessarily conclude that given proper reasons either decision would be one that no rational tribunal could reach and I express no view on what the outcome of the further hearing should be." QBD Admin Division. 26th April 2006.
by Mr Justice Crane : Crown Copyright

Warfield Park Homes Ltd v Warfield Park Residents Association [2006] APP.L.R. 03/27
Quasi-arbitration : Court recorder fulfilled the role of arbitrator, by statute, in respect of ground rent for trailers on a caravan park. There were no guidelines, simply a requirement to determine an appropriate rate. The recorder fell to determine rent rises arising from changes to water, gas and electricity rates. The tenants challenged the rate. CA held that the court would only re-examine determination if clear evidence of injustice. Here parties had agreed a list of matters so CA accepted jurisdiction. Minor adjustments made to the determination. CA. 27th March 2006.
by Carnwath LJ; Gage LJ : Crown Copyright

Weissfisch v Julius [2006] APP.L.R. 03/08
Jurisdiction : Unsuccessful appeal against refusal of application for an interim order to stay arbitral jurisdiction hearing. Arbitration agreement - seat - Switzerland : Swiss choice of Law : Kompetenze/Kompetenze. CA. 8th March 2006
by LCJ; MR. Moses LJ. Crown Copyright

Winterthur Swiss Insurance Company v AG (Manchester) Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 04/12
Confidentiality : Legal professional privilege : Whilst the applicants were in possession of documents, the legal privilege vested in the other side who sought to introduce them as evidence. Application of non-admissibility denied. QBD Commercial Court. 12th April 2006.
by Mr Justice Aikens : Crown Copyright

WPP Holdings Italy Srl v Benatti [2006] APP.L.R. 07/18
Jurisdictional challenge : Judgment regulations : England first seized of dispute involving an Italian entity. Held : Challenge failed. Commercial Court. 18th July 2006.
by Mr Justice Field : Crown Copyright

Zissis Mrs Marianne v Andrew Lukomski [2006] APP.L.R. 04/05
Challenge : Party Wall Act : Application for appeal. Procedure for challenge to award including costs award. CPR procedure clarified by the court. 5th April 2006
by Brooke LJ; Vice President of the CA Wilson LJ; Sir Peter Gibson : Crown Copyright

Our publications are provided in PDF format, in order to view them you will need Adobe's free Acrobat reader. Acrobat reader can be downloaded from Adobe by following the link to your left.


 
     
       
Top of page
 
       
      THE NATIONWIDE ACADEMY FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION (UK) Ltd.
     

 
    Copyright © NADR 2000, all rights reserved.