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



View a printer friendly version of this page.
Action Navigation Inc v Bottiglieri Navigation Spa [2005] APP.L.R. 02/16
S69 AA 1996 : Point of law ; Challenge to award – off hire clauses in a charter-party. Failed challenge – reasons not as clear as might be desired and delivered late – delay in excess of a year from hearing. Commercial Court. 16th February 2005.
by Mr Justice Aikens : Crown Copyright

Ahmed v Butt [2005] APP.L.R. 11/01
Due Process : Trial judge did not afford a sufficient opportunity for the appellant to present his evidence that monies had been repaid overseas. Untranslated documents in Urdu not dealt with by the court. Court correctly identified the central issue - viz which of the parties it was to believe : but did not consider the evidence of one of the parties thereafter. Application to appeal approved. CA. 1st November 2005.
by Chadwick LJ. Wilson LJ. Crown Copyright.

AIG Capital Partners Inc v Kazakhstan [2005] APP.L.R. 10/20
Enforcement of arbitral award : State immunity - funds to the a/c of the National Bank of the State of Kazakhstan. Interim order attaching funds discharged. Commercial Court. 20th October 2005.
by Mr Justice Aitkens. Crown Copyright

ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Ltd of England [2005] APP.L.R. 10/19
Challenge to arbitrator : Apparent Bias : Arbitrator acted as counsel in another case for a principal witness to the current arbitration. Tribunal prepared to continue without an Umpire and to resort to an alternative Umpire if the circumstances demanded. Held : Arbitrator should step down. Commercial Court. 19th October 2005.
by Mr Justice Morison. Crown Copyright

AWG Group Ltd v Morrison [2005] APP.L.R. 12/01
Conflict of interest : Bias : Trial judge declined to recuse himself because he knew a potential witness who had not been called. Since alternative witnesses had been called, there was no problems. The costs of the trial and undesirability of postponing a trial where the judge was already primed outweighted concerns which had ceased to be relevant. Chancery Division. 1st December 2005.
by Mr. Justice Evans-Lombe. Crown Copyright

AY Bank Ltd v Bosnia & Herzegovina [2006] APP.L.R. 04/12
Conflicts and State Immunity; Liquidation of a bank in the UK owned by States emanating from the former state of Yugoslavia. Issues as to justiciability. Chancery. 12th April 2006.
by Chancellor : Crown Copyright

Baird v Thurrock Borough Council [2005] APP.L.R. 11/07
Reasons : for preferring evidence ; Inadequate reasons for decision of County Court for preferring contradictory evidence. Case remitted for retrial by a different judge. CA. 7th November 2004.
by Ward LJ; Keene LJ; Gage LJ : Crown Copyright

Basso (M.J) v P.Estry; J.A. Dempsey; Santhouse Pensioneer Trustee Co Ltd [2005] APP.L.R. 11/03
Action 1) negligence Action 2) Fraud. The question here was 1) whether or not an abuse of process or subject to issue estoppel and 2) whether the doctine of laches viz inordinate delay applied. Held : principally the same issue. Action to strike approved. Application to strike out for delay rejected. Chancery Division. Manchester District Registry. 3rd November 2005
by Mr Mark Cawson Q.C. Crown Copyright

Benaim (UK) Ltd. v Davies Middleton & Davies Ltd [2005] APP.L.R. 06/15
Challenge s69 : Application to remove an arbitrator s24 : both refused. No serious irregularity or error of law disclosed. TCC. 15th June 2005.
by His Honour Judge Peter Coulson.

Bernuth Lines Ltd v High Seas Shipping Ltd [2005] APP.L.R. 12/21
Electronic Communications : Were email communications between the arbitrator and the parties effective? In the cirucmstances "any effective means" of communication were anticipated. The arbitrator sent notices to the email address on the defendant's web site. The receiving department did not forward them to the legal department. In consequence they did not submit a defence or attend the arbitration resulting in a valid default judgement. Commercial Court. 21st December 2005.
by Mr Justice Christopher Clarke. Crown Copyright

BJ, R (on the application of) v Governing Body of a School [2005] APP.L.R. 07/19
Reasons ; Duty to provide reasons : Decision quashed. School panel reinstated violent child. QBD Admin Division. 19th July 2005.
by Mr James . Goudie QC . Crown Copyright

Borgship Tankers Inc. v Product Transport Corp Ltd. [2005] APC.L.R. 02/28
Time bar : extension of time s12 ; Cargo claims under a charterparty subject to the HVR are subject to a 1 year time bar. Claimants sought damages for wasted bunkers. The event arose out of dirty holds that required cleaning. Held : This was not a cargo claim. No bar. QBD Commercial Court. 28th February 2005.
by Mr Justice Cresswell : Crown Copyright

Briggs & Forrester Electrical Ltd v Southfield School for Girls [2005] APP.L.R. 07/20
Discovery : Disclosure : Pre-action protocol. Documents needed to establish quantum in order to negotiate a settlement should be disclosed. documents regarding entitlement - which would not be disclosable under the CPR will not. TCC. 20th July 2005
by HHJ Peter Coulson.

British Aviation Insurance Co Ltd, Re [2005] APP.L.R. 07/21
Ouster clause ; To what extent, if at all, is an ADR provision that states that the jurisdiction of the courts is ousted to the extent that the law permits, valid? Held : This is a valid scheme. Chancery. 21st July 2005.
by Mr Justice Lewison : Crown Copyright

Carvill America Inc v Camperdown UK Ltd [2005] APP.L.R. 05/27
Stay to arbitration s9 ; Arbitration provisions between A & B do not prevent C who is not a party to the arbitration agreement from maintaining court action and enjoining A & B. Stay refused. CA. 27th May 2005
by Ward LJ; Clarke LJ; Longmore LJ. Crown Copyright

Cetelem SA v Roust Holdings Ltd [2005] APP.L.R. 05/24
Challenge s44 freezing order. Unsuccessful challenge to a freezing order. Test – necessity to preserve assets. 24th May 2005
by Vice Chancellor; Clarke LJ; Neuberger LJ. Crown Copyright

CGU International Insurance Plc v Astrazeneca Insurance Co Ltd [2005] APP.L.R. 12/01
Challenge : s69. Conflicts of Law : UK or US : Reinsurance dispute. Commercial Court. 1st December 2005
by Mr Justice Cresswell. Crown Copyright

Charles David Jackson v Laurieston Homes (Howood) Ltd [2005] APP.L.R. 01/14
Security : Non-payment of construction contract sums : Arrestment as security under Scottish Law. 14th January 2005.
by Lord Eassie. Crown Copyright

City & General (Holborn) Ltd. v AYH Plc [2005] APP.L.R. 09/29
Appointment of arbitrator s18 : Court appointed arbitrator. 29th September 2005.
by Mr Justice Jackson : Crown Copyright

Claire & Co. Ltd. v Thames Water Utilities Ltd. [2005] APP.L.R. 04/19
Challenge : s69 : Bias : Challenge to arbitrator's award on grounds of breach of s33 AA 1996 duty of impartiality. 19th April 2005
by Mr Justice Jackson. Crown Copyright

Cleland v Smith [2005] APP.L.R. 04/29
Arbitration and expert determination distinguished. 1st Div. Inner House, Court of Session. 29th April 2005.
by Lord President, Lord Nimmo Smith, Lord Emslie. Crown Copyright

Coal Authority v Trustees of the Nostell Trust [2005] APP.L.R. 01/28
Challenge s69 : Failed appeal against arbitral award. Doubful whether the issue was relevant to the arbitration - division of award between third parties not within jurisdiction. Even if it was, no error of law dislosed. 28th January 2005
by His Honour Judge Peter Coulson. Crown Copyright.

Continental Enterprises Ltd. v Shandong Zhucheng Foreign Trade Group Co [2005] APP.L.R. 02/02
Challenge s67 Jurisdiction ; Separability : Whilst an arbitration agreement can survive the invalidity of the main agreement for incapacity, in this case the rules provided that an arbitration agreement tainted by incapacity would be invalid. GAFTA was correct in concluding that the tribunal had no jurisdiction. QBD Commercial Court. 2nd February 2005.
by Mr Justice David Steel : Crown Copyright

Covington Marine Corp v Xiamen Shipbuilding Industry Co Ltd [2005] APP.L.R. 12/16
Challenge : s69. Existence of agreement is a mixed question of fact or law that can be corrected by the court if incorrectly determined by the tribunal. Commercial Court. 16th December 2005.
by Mr Justice Langley : Crown Copyright

Demco Investments & Commercial SAs v SE Banken Forsakring Holding Aktiebolag [2005] APP.L.R. 06/30
Challenge : s69 : There can be no appeal of facts under s69 - only an appeal of law. Commercial Court. 30th June 2005
by Mr Justice Cooke. Crown Copyright

Ecuador v Occidental Exploration & Production Co [2005] APP.L.R. 04/29
Challenge s67 jurisdiction – sovereign immunity; Arbitration challenge s67 met by a sovereign state immunity plea by the defendant asserting the award was a treaty. Court held it had jurisdiction – sovereign had submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. QBD Commercial Court. 29th April 2005.
by Mr Justice Aikens : Crown Copyright

ET Plus SA v Welter [2005] APP.L.R. 11/07
Stay to arbitration s9 ; Whilst Et Plus & Channel tunnel were subject to a Paris Arbitration agreement others including the respondent to this application were not, accordingly the stay to Paris rejected. Certain of the actions filed were dismissed out of hand. There remaining actions were stayed pending the outcome of the Paris arbitration. QBD Commercial Court. 7th November 2005.
by Mr Justice Gross : Crown Copyright

Fidelity Management SA v Myriad International Holdings BV [2005] APP.L.R. 06/09
Challenge : s68(2)d : Test serious irregularity causing substantial injustice : Not established in the instant case. Commercial Court. 9th June 2005.
by Mr Justice Morison : Crown Copyright

Flaherty v National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd [2005] APP.L.R. 09/14
Apparent bias : Test : CA. 14th September 2005
by Scott Baker LJ; Sir Peter Gibson. Crown Copyright

Glidepath BV v Thompson [2005] APP.L.R. 05/04
Privacy : s9 Application for stay : Only information required regaring application to be made public. Commercial Court. 4th May 2005.
by His Honour Judge Colman : Crown Copyright

Golden Strait Corp v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha \"The Golden Victory\" [2005] APP.L.R. 02/15
Challenge s69 point of law; Agreed appeal : Is assessment of damages a one off assessment made at time of breach or should it take into account any subsequent event that would have resulted in cancellation eg in the event of war where the charterparty was subject to a war clause. Held : The assessment should take into account the war since otherwise recovery would be greater than the actual loss of profit since the war would have ended the charter prematurely in any case. QBD Commercial Court. 15th February 2005.
by Mr Justice Langley : Crown Copyright

Hajigeorgiou v Vasiliou [2005] APP.L.R. 03/10
Expert Witness : Where a party is given permission to introduce an expert witness report, there is no requirment to disclose the contents of adverse expert reports commissioned by that party but not introduced as evidence. CA. 10th March 2005.
by Brooke LJ ; Dyson LJ; Gage LJ. Crown Copyright

Henry Boot Construction Ltd. v Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd. [2005] APP.L.R. 06/16
Accrual of action. Question . “When a cause of action arises in respect of claims for interim and, more importantly in this case, final payment under construction contracts. This must always be a question of construction. “16th June 2005
by VC; Dyson LJ; Thomas LJ. Crown Copyright

IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corp [2005] APP.L.R. 04/27
Challenge s103 : set aside award : New York Convention; Application to set aside or to stay enforcement pending challenge and cross application for security of costs. Held : Arguable defence in respect of duplication in award. 13M un-disputably due – and immediate payment ordered plus 50M security to be paid into court pending outcome of challenge before Nigerian court.QBD Commercial Court. 27th April 2005.
by Mr Justice Gross, Crown Copyright

JI MacWilliam Co Inc v. Mediterranean Shipping Co SA [2005] APP.L.R. 02/16
Challenge : Point of Law AA 1979 ; Whether or not a bill of lading was subject to the Hague Visby Rules. HL. 16th February 2005.
by Lords Bingham ; Nicholls ; Steyn ; Rodger ; Brown. Crown Copyright

Joe Armstrong & Nicola Connor v First York [2005] APP.L.R. 01/17
Reasons for preferring witnesses to joint expert. Unsuccessful appeal. 17th January 2005.
by Brooke LJ (VC) Arden LJ; Longmore LJ.

Konkola Copper Mines Plc v Coromin [2005] APP.L.R. 05/10
Stay application : part 20 defendants; Application for stay of part 20 proceedings pending determination of first party trial refused. Commercial Court. 10th May 2005.
by Mr Justice Colman : Crown Copyright

Law Debenture Trust Corp Plc v Elektrim Finance BV [2005] APP.L.R. 07/01
Stay to arbitration s9 ; Contract provided for arbitration but gave one party the right to litigate. One party submitted dispute to arbitration. Subsequently the other commenced litigation. Application for stay refused. The contract did not create an embargo on litigation once arbitration commenced. Three Shipping Ltd v Harebell Shipping Ltd [2005] 1 Lloyds Rep 509. Order restraining continuation of the arbitration issues. QBD Chancery Division. 1st July 2005.
by Mr Justice Mann : Crown Copyright

Metal Distributors (UK) Ltd. v ZCCM Investment Holdings Plc [2005] APP.L.R. 01/14
Challenge s67 jurisdiction; Challenge to preliminary determination by tribunal that it did not have jurisdiction over a counter claim. Held : Whilst the scope of the clause extended to counterclaims regarding quality of goods under the contract it did not extend to counterclaims arising out of alleged breaches of other contracts. Tribunal’s determination upheld. QBD Commercial Court. 14th January 2005.
by Mr Justice Cresswell : Crown Copyright

Mora Shipping Inc of Monrovia, Liberia v Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance Sa [2005] APP.L.R. 07/28
Challenge to General Average adjustment; Underwriters refused to comply with GA adjustment on grounds of unseaworthiness which would negate the right to GA. Owners sought enforcement in UK. Underwriters domiciled in various EU states. Held : In absence of Choice of English Law and Jurisdiction clause, under Brussels enforcement had to be sought individually before the courts of the respective states of domicile. CA. 28th July 2005.
by Ward LJ; Clarke LJ; Neugerber LJ. Crown Copyright

Occidental Exploration & Production Co v Republic of Ecuador [2005] APP.L.R. 09/09
Conflicts : Jurisdiction : state immunity; Challenge to jurisdiction of English court to hear a challenge to an award, whose seat was stated to be London England. Held the court had jurisdiction. Merits of the challenge not dealt with here. Plea of state immunity and non-justiciability rejected. CA. 9th September 2005.
by Lord Phillips MR, Clarke LJ; Mance LJ. Crown Copyright

Oxford Architects Partnership v Cheltenham Ladies College [2006] APP.L.R. 11/17
Challenge s69 limitation period ; Successful challenge against award on the grounds that the claims were statute barred. Here the architects challenged an award of an arbitrator in relation to breach of duty regarding design and on-going supervision of a construction project on the grounds that the claims were time barred. Appeal sustained. TCC. 17th November 2006.
by Mr Justice Ramsey : Crown Copyright

Penwith District Council v VP Developments Ltd. [2005] APP.L.R. 03/01
Insolvency : bankruptcy petition; Petition for bankruptcy. The company against whom the petition is sought is involved in substantial arbitration proceedings : the bankruptcy would terminate these when there is a real prospect of recovery and would thus be wrong. There were no substantial or compelling reasons to accede to the petition. Chancery. 1st March 2005.
by Mr Justice Laddie : Crown Copyright

Peter Carnegie v Charles Giessen [2005] APP.L.R. 03/01
Enforcement of a foreign debt - conversion into sterling. CA. 1st March 2005.
by Ward LJ; Dyson LJ; Carnwath LJ. Crown Copyright

Plymouth v DR Jones (Yeovil) Ltd [2005] APP.L.R. 10/31
Challenge s69 Point of Law ; Challenge failed. Essentially the challenge was based on questions of fact not of law. TCC. 31st October 2005.
by HHJ Peter Coulson : Crown Copyright

Primetrade AG v Ythan Ltd [2005] APP.L.R. 11/01
Challenge : s67. Existence of contract. Liability of holder of bill of lading for damage to vessel due to shipment of dangerous cargo. Commercial Court. 1st November 2005.
by Mr Justice Aikens. Crown Copyright

Protech Projects Construction (Pty) Ltd. v Mohammed Abdulmohsin Al-Kharafi [2005] APP.L.R. 10/14
Challenge : s68 serious irregularity on grounds of non-disclosure not established. CFA incorrectly described as an irregularity. No injustice. Commercial Court. 14th October 2005.
by Mr Justice Langley. Crown Copyright

Rafaela : JI MacWilliam Company Inc v. Mediterranean Shipping Company SA [2005] APP.L.R. 02/16
Challenge s69 : Straight or through bills of lading are bills of lading for the purposes of COGSA 71 & Hague & Hage Visby Rules. House of Lords. 16th February 2005.
by Lords Bingham : Nicholls : Steyn : Rodger : Brown : Crown Copyright

Republic of Kazakhstan v Istil Group Inc [2005] APP.L.R. 11/09
Security of costs re s67 challenge; Application for security of costs in respect of challenges to jurisdiction s67 & s68 allegations of serious irregularity. Security set at £120K. CA. 9th November 2005.
by Sir Anthony Clarke MR, ; Rix LJ; Richards LJ; Crown Copyright

Sawyer v Atari Interactive Inc [2005] APP.L.R. 11/01
Choice of Law, Jurisdiction, Arbitration. 1 contract selected all 3 including English Law, The others only chose English Law. Court held in the circumstances English Law and Jurisdiction applied. Chancery Divison. 1st November 2005
by Mr Justice Lawrence Collins: Crown Copyright

Sea Success Maritime Inc v African Maritime Carriers Ltd. [2005] APP.L.R. 07/15
Challege : s69 : Point of Law : meaning of clausing re bill of lading. Arbitrator correctly held that whilst clausing is not a term of art, in the circumstances a master could make reservations on a bill of lading, as opposed to clausing the bill or rejecting the cargo. Commercial Court. 15th July 2005.
by Mr Justice Aiken. Crown Copyright

Sinclair v Woods of Winchester Ltd. [2005] APP.L.R. 07/14
Challenge : s24 & 68 Arbitration Act 1996. Serious irregularity : Application to remove arbitrator failed. 14th July 2005.
by His Honour Judge Peter Coulson : Crown Copyright

Stansell Ltd v Co-Operative Group (CWS) Ltd [2005] APP.L.R. 07/22
Legal personality : CRS business transferred to CWS. Successful appeal against interim award on jurisdiction based on existence of a contract : Prohibition against assignment upheld. 22nd July 2005.
by His Honour Judge Blackbourne : Crown Copyright

Stephens v Cannon [2005] APP.L.R. 03/14
When confronted with conflicting expert valuations if possible the court must judge what sum is due and not merely rely on the burden of proof and the balance of probability. CA. 14th March 2005.
by Auld LJ; Arden LJ; Mr Justice Wilson. Crown Copyright

Surefire Systems Ltd v Guardian ECL Ltd [2005] APP.L.R. 08/10
Challenge : s69 Arbitration Act 1996. Appeal - fact or law? Held : Fact - application failed. TCC. 10th August 2005.
by Mr Justice Jackson. Crown Copyright

Svenska Petroleum Exploration AB v Lithuania [2005] APP.L.R. 11/04
Conflicts : State Immunity : Lithuania took part in an arbitration in respect of an exploration venture defending a claim for damages in relation to the issuing of licences. The arbitral tribunal held that the State was a party to the arbitration agreement. Enforcement action in England unsuccessfully resisted on grounds of state immunity. Commercial Court. 4th November 2005.
by Mrs Justice Gloster. Crown Copyright

Tajik Aluminium Plant (TadAZ) v Hydro Aluminium AS [2005] APP.L.R. 10/24
S43 AA 1996 : witness summons; on appeal from Chancery (Mr Justice Mann) : Lower court set aside witness summons orders – confirmed on appeal. The documents that the appellant wanted disclosed were not described in a sufficiently narrow or specific manner to justify the order. CA. 24th October 2005.
by Rix LJ; Maurice Kay LJ; Moore-Bick LJ. Crown Copyright

Thames Valley Power Ltd. v Total Gas & Power Ltd. [2005] APP.L.R. 09/27
Meaning of Dispute : Stay to Expert Determination or summary judgment. QBD. Commercial Court. 27th September 2005.
by Mr Justice Clarke. Crown Copyright

Through Transport Mutual Ins. Assoc. (Eurasia) Ltd. v New India Assurance Co Ltd. [2005] APP.L.R. 03/21
Appointment application s18; Defendant was committed to litigation in Finland. The applicant sought assistance to appoint an arbitrator, reinforced by a CA finding that they had a right to arbitrate. Court acceded to the request to appoint. The objective of the applicant was to establish by arbitration that it was not liable to the defendant. If it did so it would use s66 to affirm that absence of liability. If that conflicted with any Finnish Court ruling then the courts would have to deal with that matter when the time arose. This was a distinct possibility given differences between English and Finnish Law. QBD Commercial Court. 21st March 2005.
by Mr Justice Moore-Bick : Crown Copyright

Thyssen Canada Ltd. v Mariana Maritime SA [2005] APP.L.R. 02/23
Challenge s68 Serious Irregularity: & s69.
Claim for cargo damage by fire. S80(5) extension of time in respect of s70(3) 28 day time limit to appeal. Tribunal found that no evidence of unseaworthiness. During the arbitration the claimants had alleged either unseaworthiness or deliberate fire to claim a ctl. They now sought to establish that the loss was due to sparks from hot works and alleged the owners lied about their speculated reasons for the fire, viz a discarded cigarette by a stevedore. Held : Whether or not hot works caused the fire is no longer relevant. Should have been adduced before tribunal. Appellants had not established that the owners had lied or deceived the tribunal. Challenge an abuse of process. No extension of time given. QBD Commercial Court. 23rd February 2005.
by Mr Justice Cooke : Crown Copyright

Tradigrain v State Trading Corporation of India [2005] APP.L.R. 10/19
Challenge s69 point of law; Tribunal erred in finding that a seller is not entitled to immediate repayment of excessive monies drawn down on a bond, in the absence of proof that it is the seller and not an intermediary bank, that is out of monies. There was no need to make a Trust Order in respect of the repayment proceeds. Order that award be redrafted to order immediate payment. Challenge to jurisdiction rejected since parties had taken part without objecting. QBD Commercial Court. 19th October 2005.
by Mr Justice Christopher Clarke : Crown Copyright

TTMI Ltd of England v ASM Shipping Ltd of India [2005] APP.L.R. 11/23
Freezing order. Application to freeze funds from 1st award pending outcome of a counterclaim in a subsequent arbitration refused. Shipowners entitled to freight earned. Commercial Court. 23rd November 2005
by Mr Justice Christopher Clarke. Crown Copyright

Upstate Ltd v BHW Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Ltd [2005] APP.L.R. 12/12
Burden of Proof - Test to be applied : Practice & Procedure. Refrigeration unit failed - contents damaged : Who was responsible for the failure - client or mainenance supplier? Claimant failed to show why it failed or to establish that defendant was responsible. Actual cause of failure never established. TCC. 21st December 2005
by His Honour Judge John Toulmin CMG QC. Crown Copyright

Walker International Holdings Ltd v Republique Populaire Du Congo [2005] APP.L.R. 12/06
Enforcement : tracing; Following a judgement upholding an arbitral award in favour of Walker the question here was whether the Congo was beneficial owner of shares in the UK which could be attached for the purpose of enforcement. Held : Yes. Further comment upon the honesty of those giving false and misleading evidence and warning of potential consequences if repeated in subsequent litigation. QBD Commercial Court. 12th June 2005.
by HHJ Morison : Crown Copyright

Walsall Metropolitan B.C. v Beechdale Community Housing Association Ltd. [2005] APP.L.R. 11/30
Challenge s68 serious irregularity : s69 point of law ; Asserted irregularity arose out of applying wrong test for evaluation : Held : would have made little difference if an alternative method applied : Point of law – material from pleadings etc inadmissible – must be directed to the award. TCC. 30th November 2005.
by HHJ Peter Coulson : Crown Copyright

West Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta Spa [2005] APP.L.R. 03/21
S9 AA 1996 : Stay to arbitration – injunctive anti-suit relief. Contract substantively subject to Italian Law. Arbitration – London subject to English Law and jurisdiction. Arbitration virtually complete. Syracuse litigation commenced, hearings scheduled several months away. Under Italian law subrogation did not extend to arbitration – thus the arbitration would be ignored in Italy. Court concluded that this was an appropriate case for an anti-suit order.Commercial Court. 21st March 2005
by Mr Justice Colman: Crown Copyright

X Ltd v Y Ltd [2005] APP.L.R. 03/22
Jurisdiction : Scope : Was the subject matter of a dispute within the scope of the arbitration jurisdiction clause? TCC. 22nd March 2005
by Mr Justice Jackson. 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

    Copyright © NADR 2000, all rights reserved.