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.
 
Athletic Union Of Constantinople v National Basketball Association [2002] APP.L.R. 05/28
CPR 52.9 Strike out and set aside ; CA on appeal from Commercial Court (Deputy Judge Mr Richard Field QC) Failed s67 set aside application and failed s69 application to appeal. Also refusal to appeal against s67 application. Held : only the judge can determine application to appeal – not the CA. There is no appeal to CA against a refusal to grant application to appeal. CA 28th May 2002.
by Lord Philliips MR ; Robert Walker LJ; Clarke LJ. Crown Copyright

Bulfracht (Cyprus) Ltd. v Boneset Shipping Company Ltd. \"MV Pamphilos\" [2002] APP.L.R. 11/07
Failed s68 Challenge. 7th November 2002.
by Mr Justice Coleman.

Cable & Wireless Plc v IBM United Kingdom Ltd. [2002] APP.L.R. 10/11
Stay to ADR ; ADR agreement : Stay of action : Where the parties make an unequivocal agreement to mediate the court will issue either a stay of action or adjournment pending outcome of mediation. Commercial Court. 11th October 2002.
by Mr Justice Colman : Crown Copyright

Capital Trust Investment Ltd. v Radio Design AB [2002] APP.L.R. 02/15
S9 AA 1996 : Challenge to stay order ; Was appellant a party to the arbitration agreement? Had the respondent\'s taken a step in litigation preventing a stay. No. Stay to arbitration in Sweden upheld. CA. 15th February 2002.
by Schiemann LJ; Clarke LJ; Arden LJ. Crown Copyright

China National Petroleum Corp v Fenwick Elliott International Construction Co [2002] APP.L.R. 01/31
CPR Rule 24.2, Strike out application ; Confidentiality : attempts to gain delivery up of documents and orders of non-disclosure. Parties involved in arbitration about responsibility for delays in contract dealing which had made an order for disclosure of documents. Held that documents being sought were privileged and orders refused. Chancery. 31st January 2002.
by Vice-Chancellor. Crown Copyright

CMA CGM S.A. v Beteiligungs-Kommanditgesellschaft MS \'Northern Pioneer\' [2002] APP.L.R. 12/18
Challenge s69 : Governing principles to appeal. 18th December 2002
by Lord Phillips MR; Rix LJ; Dyson LJ.

Downing v Al Tameer Establishment [2002] APP.L.R. 05/22
Stay of action to arbitration : s9 : Disputes as to whether there was a valid arbitration agreement : Held : Arbitrator has initial jurisdiction over jurisdiction. Choice of substantive law not indicative of procedural law. 22nd May 2002.
by Potter LJ; Keene LJ; Mr Justice Sumner. Crown Copyright

Electrosteel Castings Ltd. v Scan-Trans Shipping & Chartering SDN BHD [2002] APP.L.R. 10/09
Challenge : s.67 Arbitration Act 1996, to an arbitrator's ruling as to his own jurisdiction involves a re-hearing rather than simply a review. Commercial Court.9th October 2002.
by Mr Justice Gross : Crown Copyright

Equatorial Traders Ltd. v Louis Dreyfus Trading Ltd. [2002] APP.L.R. 08/28
S67 AA 1996 : set aside application : s68 & 79 applications ; Regarding an award Dreyfus challenge quantum – and seek s79 extension of time to validate service of statement of claim – since the person responsible had been ill – and under the contract the statement was served a month too late. There followed an application for a fresh appeal – which gave rise to the s67 application, Held : Extension of time not allowed. Commercial Court. 28th August 2002.
by HHJ Chambers QC : Crown Copyright

George Wimpey UK Ltd. v Granby Village (Manchester) Management Co Ltd. [2002] APP.L.R. 08/14
S67 AA 1996. : application to vary an award ; Defects arbitration clause between constructor and owners & subsequent owners of flats. The flats were managed by the Company which acquired the freehold of the land. Was the Company a successor in title entitled to arbitrate claims regarding defective underground parking? Held : No : interim jurisdiction award set aside. TCC. 14th August 2002.
by HHJ Frances Kirkham : Crown Copyright

Glauser International SA v Khan (t/a Khan Design Consultants) [2002] ABC.L.R. 03/25
Striking out : Case commenced prematurely : Party requested extension to get expert report : Delivered late ? action struck out : Recommenced action. Struck out for abuse of process by trying to get around 1st strike out ? appeal against 2nd strike out : Court held ? case should proceed. 25th March 2002.
by Ward LJ, Chadwick LJ, Mance LJ. Crown Copyright

Glencore Grain Ltd. v Goldbeam Shipping Inc. [2002] EWHC 27 (Commercial)
S69 AA 1996 : Point of law challenge ; Head & sub charter party contracts : Laytime dispute : Two appeals : first rejected : regarding second, issue was about remoteness – not causation as dealt with by the tribunal : award remitted to arbitrators since in light of their findings no assessment had been made, so that corrections could be made in the light of the court’s determinations. Commercial Court. 25th January 2002.
by Mr Justice Moore-Bick : Crown Copyright

Hussman (Europe) Ltd v. Ahmad Pharaon [2002] APP.L.R. 04/16
S67 AA 1996 : Jurisdiction Challenge : s68 irregularity : s69 & s28 fees ; S67 : Whilst party to an arbitration agreement, was Pharaon party to the reference to arbitration? First award in favour of another entity – second award in favour of Pharaon – was tribunal functus officio? Court had rendered first award a nullity – but left it to tribunal to determine whether or not to go back and make award in the correct name. S68 – adequate opportunity. Both challenges failed – s28 issue deferred. Commercial Court. 16th April 2002.
by Michael Brindle QC : Crown Copyright

Icon Navigation Corp v Sinochem International Petroleum (Bahamas) Co. Ltd. [2002] APP.L.R. 12/19
S69 AA 1996 : Court sets out the correct procedures and circumstances for using s68 & s69. On the facts an appeal against a finding of the tribunal that there was no duty to load an oil cargo at the temperature at which the owners had to maintain it was upheld. In consequence the charterers were liable for additional freight for cargo not discharged : counterclaim for short delivery failed. Challenge to arbitrators interpretation of contract – was there a duty to load a cargo at 950 placed on the charterer before the shipowner’s duty to maintain that temperature arose. Secondary s68 challenge to the case management of the arbitration – should the tribunal have ensured that the question of whether or not loading temperature was a duty have been addressed head on in the hearing to ensure both parties a fair representation? QBD Commercial Court. 19th December 2002.
by Mr Justice Moore-Bick : Crown Copyright

Koch Shipping Inc v Richard Butler (A Firm) [2002] APP.L.R. 07/22
Confidentiality : legal representatives ; A lawyer working for a firm representing a party to an arbitration went to work for the representatives of the other party. She gave undertakings to respect the confidentiality of her previous client. Injunctive relief to prevent her new firm continuing to represent their client was rejected. There was no risk of accidental breach of confidentiality. CA. 22nd July 2002.
by Ward LJ; Tuckey LJ; Clarke LJ. Crown Copyright

Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Co SA v Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD [2002] APP.L.R. 11/04
Force majeure ; Post s44 Arbitration Act 1996 applications for support of arbitration : force majeure. Commercial Court. 4th November 2002.
by Mr Justice Aikens : Crown Copyright

McGruthor & Apollo Enginering [2002] APP.L.R. 11/26
Liquidation proceedings sisted pending outcome of arbitration. Outer House Court of Session. 26th November 2002
by Lady Smith : Crown Copyright

Norsk Hydro ASA v State Property Fund of Ukraine [2002] APP.L.R. 10/18
S100 AA 1996 : Set aside orders ; Application to set aside two court orders. Swedish Arbitral award. Order for enforcement of foreign award. Interim third party debt order. Order set aside – made against the wrong legal personality. Commercial Court. 18th October 2002.
by Mr Justice Gross : Crown Copyright

North Range Shipping Ltd. v Seatrans Shipping Corp. [2002] APP.L.R. 03/17
s69 AA\'96. Reasons : Refusal of application for appeal : Duty of court to provide reasons under HRA. CA. 14th March 2002
by Peter Gibson LJ; Aldous LJ; Tuckey LJ.

Pendulum Shipping Inc v P U Aspiration PTE Ltd [2002] APP.L.R. 07/22
S69 AA 1996 : refusal of leave ; CA on appeal from Commercial Court (Mr Justice Moore-Bick) regarding refusal of leave to appeal under s69 a prior refusal of leave to appeal. First refusal given without reasons. In round two Moore-Bick noted the general importance but did not doubt the correctness of the tribunal’s award. The North Range v Sea Trans judgment intervened overturning the Antios and requiring reasons for refusal. Sufficient reasons – appeal dismissed. CA. 22nd July 2002.
by Tuckey LJ; Crown Copyright

Peter Andrew English v Emery Reimbold & Strict Ltd [2002] APP.L.R. 04/30
Reasoned Judgement : Requirements. CA. 30th April 2002.
by Lord Phillips MR, Latham LJ, Lady Justice Arden. Crown Copyright

Phoenix Finance Ltd. v Federation Internationale De L\'Automobile [2002] APP.L.R. 05/22
S9 AA 1996 : Stay to arbitration & s44 relief : injunction ; Dispute about entitlement to take part in Grand Prix racing – following winding up proceedings and a tribunal ruling striking out eligibility of the Proust Team to compete. Multi-interest dispute – parties to relevant agreements including arbitration. Chancery. 22nd May 2002.
by Vice-Chancellor : Crown Copyright

Rafaela : J I Macwilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Co Sa [2002] APP.L.R. 04/17
Challenge s69 : Whether straight or through bills of lading are bills of lading for the purposes of COGSA 71 & Hague & Hague Visby Rules. Arbitrator's determination that HVR not applicable upheld - but note subsequently overturned by CA and confirmed by HL. 17th April 2002
by Mr Justice Langley : Crown Copyright

Royal Brompton Hospital National HNS Trust v. Hammond & Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd [2002] APP.L.R. 04/25
Contribution ; Post arbitration architect sought contribution from contract. Held at first instance, CA & HL that the harm caused by the architect was quite distinct and separate from the later delivery harm of the contract. No contribution due. House of Lords. 25th April 2002.
by Lords Bingham ; Mackay ; Steyn ; Hope ; Rodger. Crown Copyright

Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd. v Pakistan [2002] APP.L.R. 11/14
Enforcement ; Sabah sought to enforce an award against the Government of Pakistan. The Government and its trading party sought to appeal the award and procured an indefinite injunction in Pakistan. English Court issued an injunction against those proceedings. Government had waived state immunity before the English Court. Upheld on appeal. CA. 14th November 2002.
by Pill LJ; Waller LJ; Sir Martin Nourse. Crown Copyright

Sealand Housing Corporation v Siemens AG [2002] APP.L.R. 07/02
Challenge s68 : Party ignored arbitration initially then at last minute tried to introduce a counter claim and jurisdictional challenge. Arbitrators refused to entertain the new material. Held : Challenge failed. 22nd July 2002.
by Sir Andrew Morritt VC; Rix LJ. Crown Copyright

Sim Group v Neil Jack [2002] APP.L.R. 06.05
Functus Officio : Jurisdiction : Arbitrator issued a final award. Subsequently a party sought to refer another dispute to the arbitrator. Held : Functus Officio : The appointment procedure must be followed to make a fresh appointment. Outer House Court of Session. 5th June 2002
by Lord Clarke. Crown Copyright

Welex AG v Rosa Maritime Ltd. [2002] APP.L.R. 04/25
s67 AA 1996. Arbitration clause - whether incorporated from charterparty into bill of lading : Held : Yes. Commercial Court. 25th April 2002
by Mr Justice David Steel: Crown Copyright

Whiting v Halverson [2002] APP.L.R. 10/08
S9 AA 1996 : Challenge to stay : application to appeal ; CA on appeal from High Court Newcastle upon Tyne Country Court (HHJ Behrens) and against a stay of action to arbitration. Contrary to European Law the court at 1st instance, according to Behrens on appeal, incorrectly stayed a consumer dispute (membership & expulsion from the Rotary Club) to arbitration. This argument was however later abandoned since a party can waive the right. Dispute resolution procedure in rules was to either appeal to the club – or arbitrate : in absence of either club’s decision became final. Since neither had occurred decision final. Stay overturned. CA. 8th October 2002.
by Laws LJ : Crown Copyright

Yukos Oil Company v Dardana Ltd. [2002] APP.L.R. 04/18
Enforcement of foreign arbitral award / security of costs : Swedish award currently being challenged in Sweden : CA held enforcement stayed pending outcom of Swedish proceedings. Security order discharged. CA. 18th April 2002.
by Thorpe LJ; Mance LJ; Neuberger LJ. 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.