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.
Ahmad Al-Naimi (t/a Buildmaster Construction Services) v. Islamic Press Agency Inc [2000] APP.L.R. 01/28
Stay to arbitration : s9 : Stay issued at 1st instance - leaving it to tribunal to rule on jurisdiction : On appeal stay confirmed - but CA chose to address the jurisdiction issue and found the tribunal had jurisdiction. 28th January 2000.
by Waller LJ; Chadwick LJ. Crown Copyright

Anglo Group Plc v Winter Brown & Co Ltd [2000] ABC.L.R. 08/01
Expert Witness : Review of the duties of an expert to the court in the light of the CPR. Ikarian Reefer updated. TCC. 8th March 2000.
by HHJ Toulmin : Crown Copyright

Aslam v South Bedfordshire District Council [2000] APP.L.R. 12/21
Interest Award : A Lands Tribunal was unaware of its power to award interest. Whilst interest is at the discretion of the tribunal, here the award remitted for award of simple interest since that discretion was not exercised. CA on appeal from Land Tribunal. The third issue here concerned the power of the Land Tribunal to award interest – as per the Arbitration Act 1950 – and the appropriate rate of interest. CA. 21st December 2000.
by Nourse LJ; Chadwick LJ; Hale LJ. Crown Copyright

AT&T Corporation v Saudi Cable Co [2000] APP.L.R. 05/15
Bias : apparent ; Removal of arbitrator s23 AA 1950: Independence of arbitration : Unsuccessful appeal against refusal of application for removal pursuant to s23 Arbitration Act 1950. CA on appeal from Commercial Court (Mr Justice Longmore) : Arbitrator failed to directly disclose that he was a non-executive director of an organisation and held 400+ shares in a portfolio. This was an appeal against a refusal to remove under the Arbitration Act 1950 – though the same principles would apply to the 1996 Act. Could found no evidence of actual bias or misconduct – it was all an unfortunate error. If disclosed at the outset there may have been a challenge to his appointment – but the court in the exercise of its discretion would not remove at this late stage. CA. 15th May 2000.
by Woolf LJ MR; Potter LJ; May LJ. Crown Copyright

Bayoil SA v Seawind Tankers Corporation [2000] APP.L.R. 11/22
Challenge s69 : contract interpretation : Whether there was a breach of the warranty of speed of a vessel (held YES) and whether that was covered by exception clause excluding damages (held YES). Certified not a s69 issue justifying appeal. Application to appeal refused. Commercial Court. 22nd November 2000.
by Mr Justice Langley

Bhai v Black Roof Community Housing Association Ltd [2000] APP.L.R. 11/02
Challenge s69 : statutory interpretation :CA on appeal from Central London County Court : Question – whether or not a tenant had a right to buy – whether a secured tenant and impact of housing association status. CA. 2nd November 2000.
by Kennedy LJ Jonathan Parker LJ.

Birse Construction Ltd v St. David Ltd [2000] ABC.L.R. 08/17
Challenge s67 Jurisdiction : stay to arbitrations s9 : No contract concluded. Arbitration agreement not alive. No stay to arbitration. TCC. 17th August 2000.
by Mr Recorder Colin Reese : Crown Copyright

Bowden v. Logan [2000] APP.L.R. 10/26
Challenge s68 : costs award : The arbitrator called a hearing to determine entitlement to costs. However, he then went ahead and ruled on quantum without the parties being invited to or given the opportunity to make any representations. Even though the arbitrator was in possession of much information that might justify the award, and whilst cost effective, none the less it was a serious irregularity not to give the parties the opportunity to be heard on the matter. QBD Northern Ireland. 26th October 2000.
by Shiel J. Crown Copyright

Cuflet Chartering v Carousel Shipping Co Ltd [2000] APP.L.R. 12/21
Challenge s68 Serious irregularity : Assertion that owners had agreed not to press ahead to an arbitral award (ie temporary suspension of process) pending negotiations. Arbitrator went ahead and delivered the award. Was it procured by devious means? On the fact, it was clear that the charterers were aware that he would go ahead. There was in any case little scope or confidence in negotiations since the owners had arrested the charterers vessel as security and were unwilling to release it. Award upheld. Commercial Court. 21st December 2000.
by Mr Justice Moore-Bick : Crown Copyright

Fernhill Mining Ltd v Kier Construction Ltd. [2000] APP.L.R. 01/27
Security of Costs order successfully appealed. Held overturning the award that the principal reason for the applicant's weakened financial standing was the result of the defendant's actions. The Claimant had a reasonable chance of success. 27th January 2000.
by Evans LJ; Judge LJ; Clarke LJ. Crown Copyright

Fifield v. W & R Jack Limited (New Zealand) [2000] APP.L.R. 06/29
Extension of time s27 AA 1950 ; Appeal against a refusal of an extension of time to submit a dispute to arbitration. Privy Council. 29th June 2000.
by Lords Browne-Wilkinson; Cooke ; Clyde ; Hobhouse : Mr. Justice Henry. Crown Copyright

George Martin (Builders) Ltd v Shaheed Jamal [2000] APP.L.R. 07/07
Application for stay to arbitration : Held : The parties did not raise the issue when responding to the initial application. The contractual right to arbitration had been waived. Application repelled. 7th July 2000.
by Sheriff A.L.Stewart. Crown Copyright.

Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Malmaison Hotel Ltd [2000] APP.L.R. 05/25
High court refused leave to appeal a refusal to challenge under s69. Appeal against refusal denied – both because not justified in the circumstances and on the grounds that the CA has no jurisdiction to grant an appeal of refusal to grant a certificate allowing appeal. The basic rule is that a party has one chance to appeal, not multiple opportunities. 25th May 2000.
by Swinton Thomas LJ; Waller LJ; Mrs Justice Waller. Crown Copyright

Henry Boot Construction v Alston Combined Cycles [2000] APP.L.R. 04/04
Time bar : Accrual of action : When a cause of action arises in respect of claims for interim and final payment under construction contracts. Does time run from when an engineer makes a decision on an interim payment or when he should have made the decision? Or is the interim application subsumed into the final account. Engineer refused to take on board questions of limitation and certified payments for work done many years earlier. At first instance the judge arbitrator held that time ran from issue of certificate or failure to issue a certificate at the due time. Hence applications time barred. This was appealed here. Held : time runs from when the payment due by virtue of a certificate is not honoured. The interim applications could be held back to the final account. Hence, not time barred. (Note this contract was pre HGCRA payment scheme). Interest from time of due certification time barred. 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. “
by VC; Dyson LJ; Thomas LJ. Crown Copyright

Hussmann (Europe) Ltd. v Al Ameen Development & Trade Co [2000] APP.L.R. 04/19
Challenge s67 Jurisdiction : s68 serious irregularity: arbitration fees : Transfer of undertaking : whether transferee a party to the contract and thus the arbitration – tribunal dealt with this as an application to amend – held : wrong. Not a party. Arbitration commenced against original party – no loss of right to object – s30 until actual knowledge of transfer. Serious irregularity claim re expert reports dismissed. Fees adjusted. Commercial Court. 19th April 2000.
by Mr Justice Thomas : Crown Copyright

Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution (A Firm) [2000] APP.L.R. 03/09
Stay s9 – right to appeal ; House of Lords clarifies the scope for appeal under the Arbitration Act 1996 in the light of the wording of s107 consequential amendments and cross referencing s18 SCA 1981. There is a right to appeal – though it is subject to the certification process of the court.H.L. 9th March 2000.
by Lords Nicholls ; Jauncey ; Steyn; Clyde; Millett. Crown Copyright

Lindner Ceilings Floors Partitions Plc v. How Engineering Services Ltd [2000] APP.L.R. 11/28
Sealed offer : Without prejudice to costs. Validity. 28th November 2000
by HHJ Seymour. Crown Copyright

Marc Rich Agriculture Trading SA v Agrimex Ltd [2000] APP.L.R. 04/06
Time bar - crystallisation ; Gafta Arbitration : When did dispute crystallise – commencement of time for computation of time bar : whether claim time barred and tribunal out of jurisdiction. Commercial Court. 6th April 2000.
by Mr Justice Langley : Crown Copyright

Miller Construction Ltd v. James Moore Earthmoving [2000] APP.L.R. 11/01
Misconduct : Arbitrator dismissed a claim without hearing the issue. Successful application to set aside award and remove the arbitrator. Considered whether once irregularity established removal justified if no prejudice suffered. Held - in certain circumstances it is justified to protect the parties from further arbitral proceedings. 1st November 2000
by His Honour Judge Seymour : Crown Copyright.

Morrow Charlton Partnership v. Vaughan Developments Ltd T/A Vaughan Eng. Group [2000] APP.L.R. 06/07
The case for arbitration in lieu of litigation. High Court of Justice, Northern Ireland. QBD. 7th June 2000
by McLaughlin J : Crown Copyright

Vale Do Rio Doce Navegacao SA v Shanghai Bao Steel Ocean Shipping Co Ltd. [2000] APP.L.R. 04/14
Personality : Brokers purported to conclude a contract of affreightment with the ship owners on behalf of Bao Steel. Two voyages followed. Bao disavowed themselves of the contract. Vale wished to arbitrate claims against Bao and the brokers as co-defendants and unsucessfully applied for a high court declaration that Bao were parties to the arbitration. Under Lugano claim had to be litigated in Norway. Commercial Court. 14th April 2000
by Mr Justice Thomas. Crown Copyright

Weldon Plant Ltd v. The Commission for the New Towns [2000] APP.L.R. 07/14
Jurisdiction : Overheads and profits an element within the arbitrators jurisdiction : arbitrator erred by not making an allowance in that regard. 14th July 2000
by HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. Crown Copyright

Whistler International Limited v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Limited [2000] APP.L.R. 12/07
Challenge point of law AA 1979 ; HL reversed the ruling of the CA and restated the arbitrator’s determination. It was a finding that as commercial men they were entitled to reach – particularly since the defendant shipowners had failed to provide sufficient justification for deviating from the normal route and adopting a more circuitous route. House of Lords. 7th December 2000.
by Lords Bingham; Nicholls; Hope ; Hobhouse : Crown Copyright

William John Dolan t/a WJ Dolan Construction v Northern Ireland Housing Executive [2000] APP.L.R. 01/20
Slip Rule : s57 Arbitration Act 1996 or serious irregularity - s68. QBD High Court. Northern Ireland. 20th January 2000.
by Gillen J : Crown Copyright

Youell v Kara Mara Shipping Co Ltd [2000] APP.L.R. 03/13
Conflicts : Exclusive Jurisdiction clause in favour of English Law and Courts. Insurers sought anti-suit in favour of English litigation of insurance claim opposing Louisianna jurisdiction. Application granted. Commercial Court. 13th March 2000
by Mr. Justice Aikens: 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.