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.
 
Arab National Bank v El-Abdali [2004] APP.L.R 10/22
S72 AA 1996 : Set aside : fraud ; Arbitral award the result of fraud : set aside. Commercial Court. 22nd October 2004.
by Mr Justice Morison ; Crown Copyright

Asghar v Legal Services Commission [2004] APP.L.R. 07/22
S9 AA 1996 : Stay to arbitration ; Successful application for stay to arbitration : impact of Human Rights Act. Chancery. 22nd July 2004.
by Mr Justice Lightman : Crown Copyright

Assimina Maritime Ltd. v Pakistan Shipping Corp [2004] APP.L.R. 12/21
Evidence s44 Witnesses s43 ; Orders given in respect of a feasibility study carried out on behalf of the respondents to this application since the study could contain information relevant to the ship owner’s claim. QBD Commercial Court. 21st December 2004.
by HHJ Colman : Crown Copyright

Atlanska Plovidba v Consignaciones Asturianas SA [2004] APP.L.R. 05/27
Appointment s18 ; The court is here concerned not with an excusive jurisdiction clause but with an international arbitration clause. If the defendant sought to pursue a claim that fell within the arbitration agreement in Spain, the court would be bound to grant a stay under the New York Convention. In these circumstances it would be contrary to the spirit of the Convention for this court to refuse to exercise its power to appoint an arbitrator. QBD Commercial Court. 27th May 2004.
by Mr Justice Moore-Bick : Crown Copyright

Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Shamil Bank of Bahrain EC [2004] APP.L.R. 01/28
Choice of Law : England : Reference to the Sharia'a alluded to an intention by the parties to comply with Islamic Principles but they did not agree to be governed by Sharia Law. A contract must chose one Law alone to govern a contract. CA. 28th January 2004
by Potter LJ; Laws LJ; Lady Justice Arden. Crown Copyright

British Sugar Plc v Fratelli Babbini di Lionello Babbini & CSAS [2004] APP.L.R. 11/12
Jurisdiction and choice of forum - Brussels Convention considered. 12th November 2004
by His Honour Judge Richard Seymour. Crown Copyright

Cameroon Airlines v Transnet Ltd. [2004] APP.L.R. 07/29
Natural justice : Matter referred back to tribunal to give opportunity of parties to address the tribunal\'s approach - and to make a fresh determination. QBD Commercial Court. 29th July 2004.
by Mr Justice Langley ; Crown Copyright

Carter v Harold Simpson Associates (Architects) Ltd (Jamaica) [2004] APP.L.R. 06/14
Payment directions Fees - allocation ; Court enforcing an award had problems with the payment directions – viz how much due from a Joint Venture and how much due from an individual. Had an impact upon mechanism of the arbitrator for recovery of his costs & fees. Distinction between joint and several liability and the power to award costs unless the parties otherwise agreed in the submission documents. Privy Council. 14th June 2004.
by Lords Hoffman; Hope ; Scott ; Rodger ; Dame Sian Elias. Crown Copyright

Crown Resources Ag v Sumitomo Corporation (Singapore) [2004] APP.L.R. 07/13
Costs : Wasted costs order ; Solicitors challenged a paper only wasted costs order – apparently on the instructions of the client for costs pursuant to a failed arbitration. The director ostensibly giving those instructions no longer had authority since the client had filed for bankruptcy in Switzerland. By the time of the hearing that replaced the written order it became clear the client had been declared bankrupt. Solicitor held liable for a wasted costs order. Should have clarified instructions with the client at which stage the bankruptcy application would have been discovered. QBD Commercial Court. 13th July 2004.
by Mr Justice Morison ; Crown Copyright

Dept. Economic Policy & Dev. City of Moscow v Bankers Trust [2004] APP.L.R. 03/25
Privacy - party autonomy and public poicy : An appeal against an arbitration failed : The successful party wished the judgement to be published to demonstrate their business credentials to the world : The losing party wished to maintain privacy. C.A. upheld the privacy principal central to private dispute resolution. 25th March 2004.
by VC. Carnwarth LJ. Mance LJ. Crown Copyright

Esso Exploration & Production UK Ltd. v Electricity Supply Board [2004] APP.L.R. 03/31
Jurisdiction s32 ; Arbitration to adjust the price of gas in a long term contract. Trigger for a notice is to demonstrate that the price is 85% or less below the market price., and that 90 days had passed since failure to negotiate a revised price. ESB complained that the comparator used by Esso was based on annual market price rather than on the market price of comparable long term contracts. Court agreed with ESB. No jurisdiction. QBD Commercial Court. 31st March 2004
by Mr Justice Moore-Bick : Crown Copyright

Gurney Consulting Engineers v Pearson Pension Property Fund Ltd [2004] APP.L.R. 09/02
Jurisdiction : Existence of a construction contract a pre-requisite of arbitral jurisdiction. 2nd September 2004
by His Honour Judge Richard Seymour : Crown Copyright.

Indescon Ltd v Sir Robert Ogden [2004] APP.L.R. 08/20
Appointment : Arbitration reference first made in 1992 and an arbitrator appointed. Due to issues with the arbitrator he resigned and a replacement arbitrator appointed under 1992 reference terms. Defendant asserted the right to appoint had died through effuxion and abandonment. Court held : Action still alive : appointment valid. TCC. 20th August 2004.
by His Honour Judge David Wilcox. Crown Copyright

John Mowlem Construction Plc v Neil F Jones & Co [2004] APP.L.R. 06/30
Insurance : duty of solicitors to advise of risk. At first instance and on appeal a duty of solicitors to advise on a risk that the applicant should have insured against denied. 30th June 2004
by Judge LJ; Tuckey LJ; Kay LJ. Crown Copyright

JSC Zestafoni G Nikoladze Ferroalloy Plant v Ronly Holdings Ltd [2004] APP.L.R. 02/16
Jurisdiction : Validity where only two of four potential parties makes a referrence. 16th February 2004
by Mr Justice Colman. Crown Copyright

Kastner v Jason No1 [2004] APP.L.R. 03/23
Freezing order s48 – Beth Din ; Fraud & deceit arbitration. A Beth Din ordered a freezing order on property which was conveyed to a third party contrary to the freezing order. Court held that the freezing order of a tribunal should not be enforced against the purchaser and a notice in the land registry of the order be removed enabling the buyer to register title. QBD Chancery Division. 23rd March 2004.
by Mr Justice Lightman

Kastner v Jason No2 [2004] APP.L.R. 12/02
S48 AA 1996 : Freezing order s48 – Beth Din; on appeal from Commercial Court (Mr Justice Lightman) : freezing order made by arbitrators, restraining the respondent in the arbitration from disposing of his home without the arbitrators\' written consent. Appeal failed.A Beth Din issued a freezing order on property, the principal asset of the respondent. The respondent agreed to abide by the order and a caution was placed on the Land Registry. The respondent sold the property and left the country. The purchaser’s solicitor failed to take note of the caution. The issue turned on whether Jewish Law created an interest in personam or in rem. The court heard evidence of Jewish Law and concluded that the interest is in rem. Thus there was no legal interest in the property to support a caution. CA. 2nd December 2004.
by LCJ; Clarke LJ; Rix LJ : Crown Copyright

Lauritzencool Ab v Lady Navigation Inc [2004] APP.L.R. 11/12
s44(2)(e) Arbitration Act 1996 ; Injunction restraining owners from fixing vessels subject to a charterparty pending outcome of arbitration. QBD Commercial Court. 12th November 2004.
by Mr Justice Cooke : Crown Copyright

Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada [2004] APP.L.R. 02/26
Challenge s68 serious irregularity s69 point of law. Whether a prior award in an arbitration between other parties was relevant to this arbitration. Held : Prior award not relevant or admissible. Subsidiary claim that arbitrators could not rely on assurances of a party’s representatives dismissed. Arbitrators have to rely on such assurances all the time. Commercial Court. 26th February 2004
by Mr Justice Toulson : Crown Copyright

Margulead Ltd. v Exide Technologies [2004] APP.L.R. 05/06
Challenge s68 serious irregularity ; Alleged lost opportunity to respond to closing speech of respondent and further arbitrator did not refer to an assertion that the other party had affirmed a contract, negating allegations of mistake. Asserted that where there was no opportunity to reply the assumption is that it is unnecessary because the arbitrator agrees with you so no need to reply. Held : It is quite usual in International Arbitration for there to be no reply to final oral submissions of a respondent and no inference can be drawn that the arbitrator agrees with the claimant. Secondly, a deficiency of reasons in a reasoned award is not capable of amounting to a serious irregularity within the meaning of Section 68 of 1996 Act unless it amounts to a \"failure by the tribunal to deal with all the issues that were put to it\" within S68(2)(d). QBD Commercial Court. 6th May 2004.
by Mr Justice Colman : Crown Copyright

Maridive v Key Singapore, oil rig Owners [2004] APP.L.R. 10/06
Challenge s69 point of law or fact ; Appeal arbitrator changed the base value upon which the award was compounded and further altered the contributions of the parties in respect of a salvage and tow claim. The consequent reduction in the award was challenged. Court held : The second arbitrator made no errors of law or principle. Decision of fact – challenge failed. QBD Commercial Court. 6th October 2004.
by Mr Justice David Steel : Crown Copyright

NB Three Shipping Ltd. v Harebell Shipping Ltd. [2004] APP.L.R. 10/13
Stay to arbitration s9 : Owners had an option to arbitrate or litigate : Charterers had no option. Owners submitted dispute to arbitration. Charterers commenced litigation. Opposing the action for a stay the charterers maintained that since they had no option to arbitrate they had no duty to do so and thus had done nothing wrong and the litigation was therefore valid. Court disagreed : Once the owners opted for arbitration the charterers could not decline and litigation ended. QBD Commercial Court. 13th October 2004.
by Mr Justice Morison : Crown Copyright

Newfield Construction Ltd. v Tomlinson [2004] APP.L.R. 11/10
Challenge : s68. Application to set aside on grounds of serious irregularity upheld. Arbitrator took account of irrelevant documents which contradicted the pleadings. Oulines correct procedure to be used for such a challenge - paper only or hearing : s69 considered. 10th November 2004
by His Honour Judge Peter Coulson : Crown Copyright.

OT Africa Line Ltd. v Magic Sportswear Corporation [2004]APP.L.R. 11/02
Conflicts : Anti-suit ; Impact of S46(1) Canadian Maritime Liability Act 2001 which seeks to override choice of law and forum and arbitration clause. Held : Anti-suit injunction to prevent litigation in Canada issued. QBD Commercial Court. 3rd November 2004.
by Mr Justice Langley : Crown Copyright

Peacocks Ltd v Chapman Taylor [2004] APP.L.R. 11/05
Time bars & Effective Service : Defendant asserted claim sent to wrong address and eventually served outside the statutory limitation period. In the circumstances court held, exercising its discretion, that there had been effective service within time. Similar issues regarding effective service could apply to adjudication and arbitration - and similarly in respect of limitation periods. TCC. 5th November 2004
by His Honour Judge Thornton QC : Crown Copyright

Peterson Farms Inc v C & M Farming Ltd [2004] APP.L.R. 02/04
Challenge s67 Jurisdiction ; ICC arbitration : supply of diseased poultry : question relates to whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to address claims by related companies in the C&M group or whether claims were limited to C&M. This in turn turned on whether Arkansas Law applied. Held : C&M the only party to the reference. Related awards struck out. QBD Commercial Court. 4th February 2004.
by Mr Justice Langley : Crown Copyright

Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras [2004] APP.L.R. 02/02
Good faith negotiation clause ; Whether or not the contract contained a good faith negotiation – if so was it breached – and potential consequence. Commercial Court. 2nd February 2004.
by Mr Justice Moore-Bick : Crown Copyright

Phillips v Symes No1 [2004] APP.L.R. 07/30
Expert Witness : This case deals extensively with the role of expert witnesses and the role of court in dealing with conflicting expert evidence. Chancery. 30th June 2004
by Mr Justice Peter Smith : Crown Copyright

Phillips v Symes No2 [2004] APP.L.R. 10/20
Liability of an expert witness for wasted costs. Administrators sought to recover wasted costs incurred as a result of an expert report presented at a previous hearing. This judgment addresses in principle the immunity of expert witnesses and contrasts that with the expert?s duty to the court and liability for wasted costs. The final determination as to whether or not the expert was so liable was deferred to a subsequent hearing. Chancery. 20th October 2004
by Mr Justice Peter Smith. Crown Copyright

Raymond George Adams v Mason Bullock (A Firm) [2004] APP.L.R. 12/17
Double Jeopardy : Question of interest on a debt set out in pleadings but not pursued at a hearing. The decision could not subsequently be challenged on the basis of interest. The interest claim had been abandoned. Contrast where a party is prevented from pursuing an issue where appeal would lie. Chancery. 17th December 2004.
by Bernard-Livesey QC Deputy Judge

Ronly Holdings Ltd. v JSC Zestafoni G Nikoladze Ferroalloy Plant [2004] APP.L.R. 06/22
Challenges s67, s68, s69 ; Objective to recover an asserted $5M shortfall in an award. Court found that there was a shortfall which was immediately due : Issue not addressed in the arbitration. However, no serious irregularity established. QBD Commercial Court. 22nd June 2004.
by Mr Justice Gross : Crown Copyright

Rotary Watches Ltd. v Rotary Watches (USA) Inc [2004] APP.L.R. 12/17
Costs s63 ; Summary assessment of costs subsequent to dispute over the arbitrator’s costs award. Bitter protracted dispute where the claimant made a negligible recovery and where the defendant made a substantial recovery under a counterclaim (though a small percentage of the actual counterclaim) in circumstances where the counterclaim would not have been mounted were it not for the need to defend the action. £600K costs awarded to the respondent UK watchmaker. Costs Court. 17th December 2004.
by Cost Master Rodgers : Crown Copyright

Sembawang Corp Ltd v Pacific Ocean Shipping Corp [2004] APP.L.R. 11/25
Challenge fact or law : Arbitration Act 1950. Complaint was that the arbitrators finding that an owner who had lawfully terminated a ship conversion contract had not mitigated his losses by choosing a British and not a Singapore yard to complete the work. Held : Question of fact viz was there legally adequate mitigation , not law viz what is the lawful definition of mitigation. Challenge failed. QBD Commercial Court. 25th November 2004.
by Mr Justice Gross : Crown Copyright

South Tyneside v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd. [2004] APP.L.R. 11/04
Disclosure. Rent Arbitration : In effort to obtain evidence of a comparable rents B&Q (competitors of Wickes) were ordered to disclose the rent (subject to a confidentiality clause) they pay on a nearby property. B&Q successfully sought to have the order set aside. The arbitrators could access alternative information in order to establish a comparator. QBD Commercial Court. 4th November 2004.
by Mr Justice Gross : Crown Copyright

Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada v The Lincoln National Life Insurance Co [2004] APP.L.R. 12/10
Confidentiality : 1st & 2nd arbitration ; Applicability of the findings of an arbitration between A & B to a subsequent arbitration between B &C where disclosure of the first award was not objected to. Held : Not applicable or binding. CA. 10th December 2004.
by Mance LJ; Longmore LJ; Jacob LJ. Crown Copyright

Tame Shipping Ltd v Easy Navigation Ltd [2004] APP.L.R. 07/28
Confidential reasons : Privileged status and irregularity. Piercing the veil. 28th July 2004
by Mr Justice Moore-Bick. Crown Copyright

Threlfall v General Optical Council [2004] APP.L.R. 11/26
Reasons : Duty to give. QBD. Admin Div. 26th November 2004
by Mr Justice Stanley Burnton: Crown Copyright

Tonicstar Ltd. (Lloyd\'s Syndicate 1861) v American Home Assurance Co [2004] APP.L.R. 05/26
Conflicts : jurisdiction ; Court held that questions as to the jurisdiction, applicable law and seat of an arbitration should be determined by an English Court not a US Court and that further proceedings in a US arbitration should continue to be injuncted – anti-suit against US litigation of a cause already before English Court. QBD Commercial Court. 26th May 2004.
by Mr Justice Morison : Crown Copyright

Torch Offshore Llc v Cable Shipping Inc. [2004] APP.L.R. 04/07
Challenge s68 serious irregularity s69 point of law ; Vessel chartered for pipe laying was not able to support the necessary tackle without reinforcement. Damages awarded to cover cost of reinforcement and 11 days lost time. Did the arbitrator fail to deal with issue of cancellation on grounds of innocent misrepresentation or get the law wrong? Held : No on both accounts. Challenge failed. QBD Commercial Court. 7th April 2004.
by Mr Justice Cooke : Crown Copyright

Travelers Casualty & Surety Co Europe Ltd v Sun Life Assurance Co Canada (UK) Ltd [2004] APP.L.R. 07/16
Forum conveniens ; Range of claimants in EU, US & Canada. Application to stay English action to Canada. Some of the policies contained arbitration clauses in respect of US and Canada – others did not. Events all occurred in England. Most evidence to be adduced from England but significant evidence due from Canada. On a balance, England the appropriate forum, in absence of clear choice of law and forum. Stay refused. QBD Commercial Court. 16th July 2004.
by Jonathan Hirst QC. Crown Copyright

United Tyre Company Ltd v Born [2004] APP.L.R. 07/16
Joint & Several Liability – s28(3) Arbitrators fees ; Applicant request taxation pursuant to s28(3) or arbitrator’s fees 15 months after the award, having immediately after the award made a compromise offer with an indication that if not accepted he would apply for taxation. Preliminary issue : Did this delay disentitle the applicant. Judge held no. Appeal : Held : Whilst the objective of arbitration was a rapid settlement, the defendant had suffered no disadvantage and knew that the application was waiting in the wings. No reason to refuse the application. CA. 16th July 2004.
by Mance LJ; Munby LJ. Crown Copyright

Vee Networks Ltd. v Econet Wireless International Ltd. [2004] APP.L.R. 12/14
Challenge s67 jurisdiction & s68 serious irregularity; V, a Nigerian mobile telecoms company concluded a Technical Support Agreement with EWI to provide V with engineering advice etc to set up its business. V subsequently purported to cancel the agreement asserting at an arbitration for damages etc that the TSA was ultra vires EWI’s Articles & Memorandum of Association and thus unlawful and unenforceable. The tribunal found that engineering services were at the core of the TSA and thus lawful objects. V here challenge the award on the grounds 1) that the TSA was unlawful and thus the tribunal had no jurisdiction under and by virtue of the TSA and asserted a serious irregularity. Held : Whilst the decision may or may not have been correct, there was no evidence of serious irregularity and thus the challenge failed. QBD Commercial Court. 14th December 2004.
by Mr Justice Colman : Crown Copyright

Vrinera Marine Co Ltd. v Eastern Rich Operations Inc [2004] APP.L.R. 07/21
Challenge s69 : point of law; V sued the charterer ERO under a safe port clause : ERO sued BAO, sub charter under a safe port clause – both by arbitration. In the event the actions were held to be spurious – the vessel was in fact unseaworthy – which was ERO’s defence against V. Question : was ERO’s costs against BAO caused by V? Held : No – caused by it pursuing a hopeless case. QBD Commercial Court. 21st April 2004
by Mr Justice Langley : Crown Copyright

Westland Helicopters Ltd v Al-Hejailan No2 [2004] APP.L.R. 07/13
S68 AA 1996 : Serious irregularity ; Costs following s68 challenge assessed at 70%. Commercial Court. 13th July 2004.
by Mr Justice Colman : Crown Copyright

Westland Helicopters Ltd v Al-Hejailan No1 [2004] APP.L.R. 07/09
Challenge s67 jurisdiction or s68 serious irregularity ; Jurisdiction to award interest : Dispute concerned the United Arab emirates (UAE). Challenges rejected.Application for partial set aside of award on jurisdictional grounds or serious irregularity. Major aspects of the challenge were timed out. A minor part of the jurisdiction challenge regarding interest succeeded. QBD Commercial Court. 6th April 2004.
by Mr Justice Colman : Crown Copyright

World Trade Corporation Ltd. v C Czarnikow Sugar Ltd. [2004] APP.L.R. 10/18
Challenge s68 to remit award : s70 exhaustion : should the applicants have first applied to the tribunal under s57 for a correction of the award? Court held that an allegation that the tribunal omitted to apply sufficient weight to evidence is outside the scope of s57. However, the court further held that an allegation regarding weight given to evidence is not a submission that the tribunal had failed to deal with an issue. Challenge failed. QBD Commercial Court. 18th October 2004.
by Mr Justice Colman : 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.