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.
 
Ali Shipping Corporation v Sour Brodogradevna Industrija Jozo Lozovina-Mosor [1996] APP.L.R. 12/19
Stay to arbitration : Having participated in an on-going arbitration a party discovered a get out card viz a cancellation clause : They sought a judicial determination in lieu of arbitration : CA held : Too late to back out of the arbitration. If this was a preliminary matter tribunal could deal with it quickly. CA. 19th December 1996.
by Hirst LJ; Waite LJ; Peter Gibson LJ. Crown Copyright

Andrews, Trustee Of Property Of v Brock Buildings (Kessingland) Ltd [1996] APP.L.R. 11/21
S5 AA 1950 : Stay to arbitration. Dispute about delay on a contract. Sub-contractor alleged contractor responsible. Contractor terminated the contract. Sub-contractor put into liquidation by a creditor for £8K. Administrator in pursuit of £120K. Contractor commenced action for £60K for delay. Sub-contractor applied for a stay to arbitration – acceded to at first instance – sub-contractor likely to recover £70K for wrongful determination – contractor claim likely to fail. Appeal on grounds of sub-contractor’s poor financial status. Appeal failed : Appears likely that the sub-contractor’s financial state due to the contractor’s wrong doing. Stay to arbitration affirmed. CA. 21st November 1996.
by Master of the Rolls, Aldous LJ; Brooke LJ. Crown Copyright

Crouch Mining Ltd v British Coal Corporation (t/a British Coal) [1996] APP.L.R. 11/18
S4 AA 1950 : Stay to arbitration – due at end of project likely to be in 2004. Did this deprive a party of opportunity of justice? Neld : NO. This is what the parties contracted for and must therefore live with. Scottish arbitration – implications of New York award. CA. 18th November 1996.
by Saville LJ; Brooke LJ; Crown Copyright

Daad Sharab v Usama Salfiti [1996] APP.L.R. 12/12
Enforcement : Public Policy : Foreign Illegality : Relevance of allegations of illegality under foreign law before an English Court: Libyan Law describes unlawful intermediary activities as "Mediation". CA. 12th December 1996.
by Nourse LJ; Judge LJ; Waller LJ. Crown Copyright

Delta Civil Engineering Co Ltd v London Docklands Dev. Corp. [1996] APP.L.R. 10/11
Enforcement s26 AA 1950 : jurisdiction : on appeal from QBD (in the matter of the Arbitration Acts 1950-1979 and in the matter of an arbitration) : Arbitrator awarded costs of a settlement process and costs of settlement award. Issued : did he have jurisdiction? YES. CA. 11th October 1996.
by Staughton LJ; Swinton Thomas LJ. Crown Copyright

Flood v Shand Construction Ltd [1996] APP.L.R. 12/18
Assignment : Scope of a clause prohibiting the sub-contractor from assigning the benefit of the sub-contract which appears in a widely-used standard form. He;d : clause 2(3) of the sub-contract renders invalid the assignment by the company plaintiff of any claim which cannot be expressed simply as a present or future claim for a fixed amount due under the sub-contract. This precludes the assignment of claims for damages or for sums which fall to be assessed under or in accordance with the sub-contract terms, except where the assignment transfers only the future right to recover the amount when it is duly established by agreement or otherwise. CA. 18th December 1996
by Butler-Sloss LJ; Evans LJ; Sir Iain Glidewell. Crown Copyright

Glocom Ltd v Eagle Star Reinsurance Co Ltd [1996] APP.L.R. 10/04
Conflicts : Insurance : Inter-relationship between Open Cover policy (subject to Dutch Law) and the certificate issued pursuant to and in compliance with a cif sales contract requiring equivalent minimum GAFTA provisions – including English Law. Held : The English jurisdiction clause prevailed. CA. 4th October 1996.
by Phillips LJ; Mummery LJ. Crown Copyright

Niko International Group Ltd v Nea Philadelphia [1996] APP.L.R. 10/03
Conflicts : service out of jurisdiction – extension – in lieu of arbitration. Respondent refused to accept service of arbitration notice or to accept validity of arbitration : Applicant applied for writ to serve out of jurisdiction in Malta. Due to problems with the Maltese Court writ served late. Failed application and appeal from failure to extend writ. Applicant had not provided reasons for the extension (though if they had it is likely it would have been granted). CA. 3rd October 1996.
by Waite LJ; Saville LJ; Otton LJ. Crown Copyright

Phillips Petroleum Company United Kingdom Ltd v Enron Europe Ltd [1996] APP.L.R. 10/10
Reasonable endeavours. Court withdrew a declaration that financial interests could not be taken into account when determining what was reasonable in respect of a commissioning event for a plant under the terms of the contract. Assessment is not limited to technical limitations alone. 10th October, 1996
by Kenney LJ; Potter LJ; Sir John Balcombe. Crown Copyright

Royal Bank Of Scotland v Jennings [1996] APP.L.R. 10/24
Court ordered landlord to comply with rent review provisions and apply to the President of RICS to appoint an expert valuer. Did so : revaluation resulted. Was the appointment and the valuation valid. YES. CA. 24th October, 1996.
by Vice Chancellor, Saville LJ; Potter LJ. Crown Copyright

Soinco SACI v Novokuznetsk Aluminium Plant [1996] APP.L.R. 09/30
Garnishee Order : New York Award. Attempt to overturn a garnishee order in support of a Swiss Award on the grounds that there was a risk that the guarantor might have to pay out twice on the guarantee. Held : No real danger established. Garnishee order sustained. CA on appeal from QBD High Court (HHJ Jack QC). 30th September 1996.
by Phillips LJ; Waller LJ. Chadwick 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.