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.
 
Barings plc v Coopers & Lybrand [2001] APP.L.R. 02/09
Expert evidence : Application for declaration that expert evidence inadmissible as not being made by reference to any objective standards but rather were mere expressions of opinion based simply on their own experience rejected. Often it is the absence of written codes that results in the appointment of experts in the first place. Chancery Division. 9th February 2001
by Mr. Justice Evans-Lombe : Crown Copyright

Bay Hotel & Resort Ltd v Cavalier Construction Co. Ltd. [2001] APP.L.R. 07/16
Challenge : set aside : reasoned award : joinder of third party ; Where a reasoned award was required could an award be set aside for insufficient reasons? Award subject to the AAA arbitral rules – so test of sufficient reasons to be based on AAA rules – not what would be sufficient under English Law. In the circumstances there were sufficient reasons. However, an award regarding joinder of a third party set aside – outside remit of the tribunal. Privy Council. 16th July 2001.
by Lords Nicholls ; Cooke ; Clyde; Hutton; Millett. Crown Copyright

BMBF (No 12) Ltd v Harland & Wolff Shipbuilding & Heavy Industries Ltd [2001] APP.L.R. 06/08
Contract interpretation : CA preferred the interpretation of a ship building contract over that of a judge and reinstated the arbitral award. Concepts of general interpretation based on commercial concepts should not override the understanding of chosen experts within the field. 8th June 2001.
by Potter LJ; Clarke LJ; Sir Martin Nourse. Crown Copyright

Caltex (LG) Gas Co Ltd v National Petroleum Corporation [2001] APP.L.R. 05/15
Personality : Caltex commenced an arbitration against the respondents. The arbitrator found on basis of ad hoc appointments that they were not parties to arbitration agreements. The high court found that the arbitration settled the question of liability and that no appeal lay against it. Caltex successfully appealed the refusal to allow an appeal on the jurisdiction award. Trial to follow. CA. 15th May 2001.
by Phillips LJ; Pill LJ; Keene LJ. Crown Copyright

Delos, owners of cargo v Delos Shipping Ltd [2001] APP.L.R. 01/31
Stay s9 AA 1996 ; Incorporation of arbitration clause into bills of lading and whether scope extended to tort and bailment. The terms “all disputes whatsoever” was wide enough to encompass tort and bailment. Stay granted. Commercial Court. 31st January 2001.
by Mr Justice Langley : Crown Copyright

Dennis Stringfellow v David Blyth [2001] APP.L.R. 06/18
Expert report : Judge reached a contrary finding. Report agreed by the parties. Held : Judge could not reach a contrary finding. CA 18th June 2001.
by Sedley LJ; Sir Murray Stuart-Smith. Crown Copyright

Fearn v Swindon Borough Council [2001] APP.L.R. 03/08
Agricultural Act Arbitration ; County Court judge set award aside for error of law on face of record : Incorrect interpretation of contract and failure to consider submissions. Appeal dismissed : Little likelihood of establishing the judge was incorrect. CA. 8th March 2001.
by Chadwick LJ; Arden LJ. Crown Copyright

Fence Gate Ltd v NEL Construction Ltd [2001] APP.L.R. 12/05
Costs appeal : applicable principles ; Where an arbitrator determines that a claim was excessively high and discouraged settlement negotiations, those determinations must be supported by evidence. If not so supported the costs decision is untenable. In the event the court reassessed costs so that rather than the parties bearing their own costs, the successful claimant received 65% of his costs. TCC. 5th December 2001.
by HHJ Thornton : Crown Copyright

Gannet Shipping Ltd v Eastrade Commodities Inc [2001] APP.L.R. 12/06
Slip rule s57 : s67 / 68 challenges ; Correction of error : did the tribunal have jurisdiction to correct an error – and if so was there a serious irregularity. Challenges failed. Commercial Court. 6th December 2001.
by Mr Justice Langley : Crown Copyright

Ghosh (Dr Purabi) v. General Medical Council (Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC) [2001] APP.L.R. 06/18
GMC Reasons : Privy Council. 18th June 2001.
by Lords Bingham, Thorndon; Millett. Crown Copyright

Gibson Joint Venture v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland [2001] APP.L.R. 12/21
Extension of time s12 AA 1996 ; Dispute regarding an ICC 5th edition contract. Failure to demonstrate that the conditions under s12(3)(a) or (b) had been satisfied – viz outside reasonable contemplation of the parties & unjust or conduct of a party made it unfair, application failed. QBD Northern Ireland. 21st December 2001.
by Shiel J : Crown Copyright

Gifford William Bruce v Keith Robert William Kordula [2001] APP.L.R. 05/15
Arbitrator to be appointed by a non-existent body. Held : court would not substitute an actual body, however close the title, since it could not be assumed that is what the parties meant. The arbitration clause failed for uncertainty. Outer House Court of Session. 15th May 2001
by Lord Hamilton. Crown Copyright

Goldstein v Conley [2001] APP.L.R. 05/04
Costs : AA 1996 ; CA on appeal from QBD (The Hon Mr Justice Gray) and on appeal from the Lands Tribunal (HHJ Rich QC) . Costs for Lands Tribunal proceedings governed by the Arbitration Act 1996. Inter-relationship with CPR regarding costs of enforcement & challenge actions before the courts. CA. 4th May 2001.
by Mantell LJ; Clarke LJ; Sir Anthony Evans. Crown Copyright

Groundshire Ltd v VHE Construction plc [2001] APP.L.R. 02/15
Challenge s68. Serious Irregularity. Arbitrator determined the relevant period in dispute was a different period of time to that put forward by opposing parties. Was there a substantial injustice? Held : No . Application refused. TCC. 15th February 2001
by HHJ Bowsher QC. Crown Copyright

Gupta v. General Medical Council (GMC) [2001] UKPC 61
Reasons : GMC. Privy Council. 18th December 2001
by Lords Steyn, Hobhouse, Rodger. Crown Copyright

IFR Ltd v Federal Trade Spa [2001] APP.L.R. 09/19
Whether contract voidable for duress -impact upon choice of law clause : availability of injunctive relief. Commercial Court. 19th September 2001.
by Mr. Justice Colman. Crown Copyright

Invensys Plc v Automotive Sealing Systems Ltd. [2001] APP.L.R. 11/08
Expert determination : challenge ; Application for summary judgement enforcing determination of an expert, said to be enforceable subject to manifest error. No manifest error having been established, enforcement ordered. Commercial Court. 8th November 2001.
by Mr Justice Thomas : Crown Copyright

Kemi v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd [2001] APP.L.R. 04/03
Set off – different contracts : stay of counterclaim to arbitration ; CA on appeal from Commercial Court (HHJ David Mackie) : Issue : The degree of connection which must be shown between (1) a claim for unliquidated damages for breach of a contract and (2) a cross-claim for unliquidated damages for breach of a different contract between the same parties, in order to permit the latter claim to be the subject of an equitable set-off against the former claim, where the second claim is subject to an arbitration clause. At first instance and on appeal held that set off allowed – but trial limited to question of liability, pending outcome of arbitration. CA. 3rd April 2001.
by Potter LJ; Sedley LJ; Jonathan Partker LJ. Crown Copyright

Magill v. Weeks [2001] APP.L.R. 12/13
Apparent Bias : Test. H.L.13th December 2001.
by Lords Bingham ; Steyn; Hope ; Hobhouse ; Scott. Crown Copyright

North Range Shipping Ltd v Seatrans Shipping Corp [2001] APP.L.R. 07/16
Challenge to trial judges refusal to grant permission to appeal ; CA on appeal from QBD (Mr Justice David Steel) : Question here deferred to be heard at a later hearing along with issues. Question of interrelationship between Human Rights Act and s69 raised – court doubted right of CA to over-rule trial judge on right to appeal. CA. 16th July 2001.
by Clarke LJ; Kay LJ. Crown Copyright

Orkney Islands Council [2001] APP.L.R.09/21
Jurisdiction : limitation : Court held whether limitation applied and whether there was a dispute were matters for the arbitrator not the court. Outer House. Court of Session. 21st September 2001
by Lord Johnson. Crown Copyright

Petroleo Brasiliero SA v Mellitus Shipping Inc [2001] APP.L.R. 03/29
Stay to arbitration s9 ; Stay to arbitration s9. Part 20 defendants to a charter party action cannot seek a stay on grounds of arbitration clause in bills of lading. Court had the jurisdiction over the action to which they could be validly enjoined. CA. 29th March 2001.
by Potter LJ; Sedley LJ; Jonathan Parker LJ. Crown Copyright

Petroships Pte Ltd of Singapore v. Petec Trading & Investment Corp of Vietnam [2001] APP.L.R. 05/22
Challenge s68 & s70(4) AA 1996 : Challenge s69(2) ; Issue : Did the tribunal provide a sufficiently reasoned award in respect of a claim of frustration to enable the court to conduct a s69 examination of the point of law? On a separate issue one aspect of the award remitted to the tribunal for clarification pending a s69 trial. Commercial Court. 22nd May 2001.
by Mr Justice Cresswell : Crown Copyright

Profilati Italia S.R.L. v. Painewebber International Futures Ltd. [2001] APP.L.R. 01/23
Challenge s68 made out of time : allegation that contrary to public policy the award was procured through non-disclosure of documents. Discusses scope of duty to disclose – targets concept of wrongful intentional non-disclosure and requirement of substantial injustice – neither of which were evident here. Commercial Court. 23rd January 2001.
by Mr Justice Moore-Bick : Crown Copyright

Scottish Equitable Plc v Miller Construction Ltd [2001] APP.L.R. 08/31
Limitation : accrual of action. Application by arbiter for declaration regarding the time when action accrued and accordingly whether or not the claims were out of time. Inner House, Court of Session. 31st August 2001.
by Lords Prosser; Milligan; Kingarth. Crown Copyright

Solutia UK Ltd v Griffiths [2001] APP.L.R. 04/26
Costs : limiting ; CA on appeal from QBD (Miss Barbara Dohman QC sitting as a Deputy Judge) : whether or not it was appropriate for London Solicitors to be engaged where local solicitors in North Wales could have handled the case – and thus whether the uplifted London costs were recoverable. CA. 26th April 2004.
by Latham LJ; Mance LJ; Sir Christopher Staughton. Crown Copyright

Sonatrach Petroleum Corporation (BVI) v Ferrell International Ltd [2001]APP.L.R. 10/04
Stay s9 AA 1996 of certain claims ; Twin track resolution process : certain claims subject to English Law & Jurisdiction : others to Japanese arbitration. Stay granted regarding those subject to Japanese arbitration. Commercial Court. 4th October 2001.
by Mr Justice Colman : Crown Copyright

Starsin : Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd [2001] APP.L.R. 01/23
(1) Are the bills of lading in question owners' bills or charterers' bills? (2) If they are charterers' bills, can the owner of the vessel that performed the carriage be sued in tort? (3) If the owner can be sued in tort, to what extent can it be protected by the Himalaya clause contained in the bills of lading? CA. 23rd January 2001.
by Sir Andrew Morritt VC; Chadwick LJ; Rix LJ. Crown Copyright

Turner v. Grovit [2001] APP.L.R. 12/13
Conflicts ; Reference to ECJ on a question of interpretation of the Brussels Convention. House of Lords. 13th December 2001.
by Lords Nicholls ; Hoffmann ; Hobhouse ; Millett ; Scott . Crown Copyright

Unum Life Insurance Co Of America v Israel Phoenix Assurance Co Ltd [2001] APP.L.R. 07/18
Stay s9 AA 1996 ; CA on appeal from Commercial Court (Mr Justice Andrew Smith) against refusal to grant a stay. Termination of a reinsurance policy cancelled out the arbitration clause. CA. 18th July 2001.
by Mance LJ; Keene LJ. Crown Copyright

Veba Oil Supply & Trading GmbH v Petrotrade Inc [2001] APP.L.R. 12/06
FOB – expert determination - Whether pre-loading certificate final and binding. Whether wrong test applied. Held : Wrong method of testing used. Certificate not binding. CA. 6th December 2001
by Simon Brown LJ; Tuckey LJ; Dyson LJ. Crown Copyright

Wicketts v Brine Builders & Siederer [2001] App.L.R. 06/08
Arbitrator : Misconduct : Successful application for removal of arbitrator. s24 Arbitration Act 1996. TCC. 8th June 2001.
by His Honour Judge Seymour QC. 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.