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.
Agropol Trading Praha SRO v Podex SRO [1997] APP.L.R. 10/29
S22 AA 1950: s23 AA 1950 Misconduct: procedural mishap. Unsuccessful application for a GAFTA appeal board award to be remitted to under Ss 22 or 23 on grounds of either misconduct or procedural mishap. CA. 29th October 1997.
by Hobhouse LJ; Pill LJ. Crown Copyright

Ahmed v London Borough Of Southwark No1 1997] APP.L.R. 06/12
Pro-se applicant to a Tenancy Arbitration Tribunal initially sought repair work but no damages. Subsequently appealed in an attempt to recover damages by alleging that he was denied an opportunity to present his case. Court found he had the necessary opportunity and presented his case but failed. Appeal against that failure also failed. Highlights the dangers of acting pro-se where the applicant does not understand the law or relevant procedures. Administrative Court. 12th June 1997
by Mr Justice Laws. Crown Copyright

Ahmed v London Borough Of Southwark No2 [1997] APP.L.R. 09/02
S23 AA 1950 : Application for removal of arbitrator : Appeal against refusal to dismiss arbitrator. Appeal terms altered to assert that the tribunal extended its jurisdiction. An initial tribunal found a failure to repair by landlord. Second tribunal was to assess damages. Applicants assert that they never assented to extension of jurisdiction to embrace overturning the first finding and concluding problem due to tenant’s lifestyle. Appeal granted. Grounds were arguable – giving rise to the need for a hearing. CA. 2nd September 1997
by Morritt LJ; Phillips LJ. Crown Copyright

Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH v Societe Cargill France [1997] APP.L.R. 11/25
Anti suit : Reference to ECJ – re legality of injunction. Reference to ECJ to determine whether an anti-suit injunction can be issued where a defendant institutes litigation in an EC court contrary to an arbitration clause and in breach of contract. 25th November 1997.
by Staughton LJ; Phillips LJ; Robert Walker LJ. Crown Copyright

Ali Shipping Corporation v Shipyard Trogir [1997] APP.L.R. 12/19
Confidentiality : bar against use of information gathered in one arbitration in a subsequent arbitration. 19th December 1997.
by Beldam LJ; Potter LJ; Brooke LJ.

Armstrong, R (on the application of) v Chartered Institute Of Arbitrators [1997] APP.L.R. 07/17
Reasons - adequacy : An arbitrator issued an award in respect of alleged liability for subsidence. A complaint was made that insufficient reasons were provided. The arbitrator was asked to expand. He essentially refused asserting the reasons in the award were sufficient and self explanatory. The CIArb, Professional Conduct Committee concluded that the reasons were inadequate but did not question the actual award. Following this the Panel Management Group determined that any subsequent award would first be vetted by the PMC before being released to ensure adequate reasons were provided. Armstrong felt slighted by all this resulting in this action. The court agreed with the CIArb that the reasons were inadequate and did not address the issue at hand. QBD Admin Division. 17th July 1997.
by Mr Justice Owen : Crown Copyright

Barclays Bank Plc v Kent County Council [1997] APP.L.R. 11/24
Interest : Lands Tribunal s20 AA 1950. Whether the Lands Tribunal has the power to award interested. CA. 24th November 1997.
by Kennedy LJ; Judge LJ. Chadwick LJ. Crown Copyright

Billadean International SA v Snamprogetti Ltd [1997] APP.L.R. 02/18
S3 AA 1950 : New York awards enforcement. Unsuccessful appeal against a refusal to stay enforcement of two New York Awards on policy grounds – viz fraud and no actionable case to enforce by arbitration. Both issues already addressed adequately at first instance. Here the application was for a stay pending application to appeal.CA. 18th February 1997
by Saville LJ; Brooke LJ. Crown Copyright

Co-Op Wholesale Society Ltd (t/a CWS Engineering Group) v Birse Construction Ltd [1997] APP.L.R. 07/09
Construction arbitrations : Main & sub contracts in JCT form: First arbitration between employer & contractor : but employer played no part - running made by sub-contractor : Found no fault on contractor or sub-contrator & monies due to both : Employer went into liquidation ; Subcontractor successfully enforced payment from contractor. AA 1979. 9th July 1997.
by Nourse LJ; Roche LJ; Phillips LJ; Crown Copyright

Cohort Construction Co (UK) Ltd v Spring Hotels Ltd [1997] APP. L.R. 04/16
Application for security of costs - re arbitration : Appeal : Claim & Counterclaim : CA : 16th April 1997
by Evans LJ : Hobhouse LJ : Hutchinson LJ : Crown Copyright

Connelly v. RTZ Corporation Plc [1997] APP.L.R. 07/24
Forum conveniens – legal aid – costs – conditional fees. Relevance of the availability of legal aid to the issue of forum conveniens. Connelly pursued action against RTZ for lung disease contracted whilst working in South Africa. Whether UK or Namibia appropriate forum : whether Connelly entitled to legal aid in forum action – cross reference to arbitration principles – whether under a CFA RTZ entitled to a contribution on costs. H.L. 24th July 1997.
by Lords Goff; Lloyd; Hoffmann; Hope. Clyde. Crown Copyright

Curtis v London Rent Assessment Committee [1997] APP.L.R. 10/09
Reasons : Rent tribunal. At first instance the court quashed a rent assessment and remitted to a newly constituted tribunal for reassessment. ON appeal issued were : whether and in what circumstances a successful party can challenge in the Court of Appeal the reasoning of the judge below. If such a challenge can be made, the second and third questions concern the lawfulness and rationality of the Committee\'s mode of assessment and the adequacy of its written reasons. CA. 9th October 1997
by Butler-Sloss LJ; Hirst LJ; Auld LJ. Crown Copyright

Customs & Excise v Civil Service Motor Association [1997] APP.L.R. 11/25
Award : requirements : Per Hobhouse LJ : An award should set out clearly determinations of fact before setting out and applying the relevant law. This was only achieved here by a detailed recitation of facts by the judge with the assistance of council. However, in the circumstances award of tribunal confirmed. CA. 25th November 1997.
by Hobhouse LJ; Pill LJ; Mummery LJ. Crown Copyright.

Davies Middleton & Davies Ltd v Toyo Engineering Corporation [1997] APP.L.R. 08/29
Stay to arbitration s9 AA 1996 : Good faith clause : Jurisdiction of court to determine whether ADR exhausted and dispute now subject to arbitration : CA stayed action to arbitration. 29th August, 1997
by Simon Brown LJ; Phillips LJ. Crown Copyright

Fletamentos Maritimos SA v Effjohn International BV [1997] APP.L.R. 02/12
Bias - discrimination : Complaints against tribunal and allegations of discrimination in respect of solicitors acting for one side and role of arbitrator giving evidence in the Zaiwalla v Elstub litigation. CA. 21st February 1997.
by Simon Brown LJ; Morritt LJ; Waller LJ. Crown Copyright

General Construction Ltd v Aegon Ins Co (UK) Ltd [1997] APP.L.R. 05/21
Due Process : Conflicts & Procedure : Was a paper only arbitration procedure satisfactory under the Law of Mauritius ? YES : 21st May, 1997
by His Honour Judge Bowsher. Crown Copyright

Georgian Maritime Corporation v Sealand Industries [1997] APP.L.R. 07/29
S1(7) AA 1979 : Leave to appeal – general importance test. Two certified questions : Appeal from award – set aside – leave to appeal granted but then set aside. Here – appeal from second set aside : whether the Charterers were entitled to cancel if, at the date and time provided in the cancelling clause, there was not a sufficient quantity of bunkers on board the vessel. whether the Charterers were entitled to cancel although they had not yet declared their option as to whether the vessel should be tendered at their berth in Hong Kong or dropping the last outward pilot, when the fact was that she was not yet ready to be delivered in either place if the contractual quantity of bunkers was an essential preliminary. CA concluded these are questions of general importance and therefore granted leave to appeal.CA. 29th July 1997.
by Staughton LJ; Judge LJ. Crown Copyright

Glencore Grain Rotterdam BV v Lebanese Org. For International Commerce (Lorico) [1997] APP.L.R. 06/25
GAFTA award : whether the buyers under a sale contract on fob terms incorporating GAFTA form 64 were entitled to open a letter of credit in favour of the sellers which was restricted to payment against freight pre-paid bills of lading; whether, if the buyers were not so entitled and were thereby in breach of contract, the sellers can rely on that breach to justify their own refusal and failure to ship the contract goods. appeal allowed :cross-appeal dismissed with costs. CA. 25th June 1997.
by Nourse LJ; Evans LJ; Sir Ralph Gibson. Crown Copyright

Halki Shipping Corporation v Sopex Oils Ltd [1997] APP.L.R. 12/19
Dispute, Meaning of : Stay of Action : Application to defer to Arbitration under s9 Arbitration Act 1996. CA. 19th December 1997.
by Hirst LJ, Henry LJ, Swinton Thomas LJ : Crown Copyright

Hughes v Hannover Ruckversicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft [1997] APP.L.R. 01/28
Conflict of laws : Injunctive relief : US based reinsurance - arbitration clause - ex aequo bono - US. CA declined jurisdiction - no real connection with the UK. CA. 28th January 1997.
by Roch LJ; Morritt LJ; Thorpe LJ. Crown Copyright

Matthew Hall Ortech Ltd v. Tarmac Roadstone Ltd [1997] APP.L.R. 12/11
Challenge to interim award : Meaning of and impact of Clause 38.5 IChem : conclusive evidential effect of Final Certificate acts as a bar to further claims in contract & tort. 11th December, 1997
by HHJ Thornton Q.C. Crown Copyright

Mediterranean Feeders L P v Bernd Meyering Schiffahrts [1997] APP.L.R. 06/05
Application for security, in support of arbitration. In order to secure funds to meet a strong potential arbitral claim evidence must be adduced that the defendants were likely to dissipate such funds : the mere risk alone is insufficient. Application refused. 5th June 1997.
by Evans LJ; Hobhouse LJ. Crown Copyright

Modahl v British Athletic Federation Ltd [1997] APP.L.R. 07/28
Bias alleged on basis of statements indicating two members of the board had prejudged the guilt of the applicant in respect of allegations of doping. CA. 28th July 1997.
by Lord Woolf MR; Morritt LJ; Pill LJ. Crown Copyright

Norwest Holst Construction Ltd v. Co-Operative Wholesale Society Ltd [1997] APP.L.R. 12/02
S22 AA 1950 s23(2) AA 1950. Applications for further reasons from an arbitrator for an award and a remission or setting aside of that award pursuant to s22 & 23(2) Arbitration Act 1950. Judgment considers what is a question of law for the purpose of founding an appeal from an arbitrator\'s award and what is the applicable test for determining an application for further reasons and what material may be considered by the court in reaching that determination and applied the test to 5 specific and discrete applications for further reasons. Judgment also considers what the applicable test is for a remission application and applies that test to 7 specific and discrete complaints of procedural irregularity. TCC : 2nd December 1997
by His Honour Judge Thornton Q.C. Crown Copyright

Orchard (John Timothy) v Hutchings (Neil) [1997] APP.L.R. 07/31
S69 AA 1996 Challenge : point of law or fact? During the course of an arbitration the claimant produced a plan and asserted defects in a conservatory. The applicant appealed on the basis that there was an irregularity in that he asserted that he had never seen the plan and the arbitrator ignored this. Held : By implication the arbitrator believed he had seen the plan. Issue of fact – appeal failed. CA. 31st July 1997
by Otton LJ; Hutchison LJ; Crown Copyright

Palmers Corrosion Control Ltd v Tyne Dock Engineering Ltd [1997] APP.L.R. 11/20
Stay s4 AA 1950 : CA on appeal from QBD (HHJ Faulks) : Stay of third party proceedings to arbitration removed. CA. 20th November 1997.
by Staughton LJ; Hirst LJ; Potter LJ. Crown Copyright

Phoenix Shipping (Pty) Ltd v General Feeds Inc [1997] APP.L.R. 04/22
s27 AA 1950 : Application for extension of time. Extension granted by a \"whisker\". Authorities reviewed. CA. 22nd April 1997.
by Potter LJ; Mummery LJ. Crown Copyright

Rostron v Elliott [1997] APP.L.R. 07/16
Slip rule : Amendment of an award to include and backdate interest on an award re two petitions under section 459 of the Companies Act 1985. Distinguishes between finality of award regarding errors of law – finding of facts : contrast where error down to counsel.CA. 16th July 1997.
by Butler-Sloss LJ; Peter Gibson LJ; Thorpe LJ. Crown Copyright

S.D.Von Appen GmbH v Wiener Allianz Versichrungs AG & Voest A.I. GmbH [1997] APP.L.R. 04/16
Application for stay to foreign arbitration. CA. 16th April 1997.
by V.C.; Hobhouse LJ; Morritt LJ. Crown Copyright

Semco Salvage Marine Pte Ltd v. Lancer Navigation [1997] APP.L.R. 02/06
Challenge : point of law - Court asked to interpret article 14 LOF arbitration terms regarding what is \"a fair rate for equipment and personnel actually and reasonably used in the salvage operation.\" House of Lords. 6th February 1997.
by Mackay LC : Lords Goff ; Mustill ; Lloyd ; Hope. Crown Copyright

Total Transport Corporation v Arcadia Petroleum Ltd [1997] APP.L.R. 11/18
Appeal : point of law : charterparty : E&I. Ship owners not required under the contract to provide the Charterers with a complete indemnity for all loss de facto resulting from the owners\' failure to comply fully with Charterers voyage instructions however improbable or unpredictable. Award displaced. CA. 18th November 1997.
by Staughton LJ; Auld LJ; Sir John Balcombe : Crown Copyright.

Turner v Stevenage Borough Council [1997] APP.L.R. 03/06
Application for removal of an arbitrator : Arbitrator wrote inviting parties to agree to interim payments, in particular to provide for specialist advice. One party refused and applied for removal. Held : Interim payments are sensible for protracted arbitrations but should be part of engagement contract. Here a mere request was no ground for removal – made to both parties. No prejudice. CA. 6th March 1997.
by Staughton LJ; Pill LJ; Mummery LJ. Crown Copyright

W G Birch Construction Ltd v Chaddington Property & Development Company Ltd [1997] APP.L.R. 11/20
Partial stay to arbitration. Complex situation where some issues and claims subject to litigation : whilst a separate category of claims were covered by arbitration provisions for which a stay was granted and maintained by the CA. 20th November, 1997
by Beldam LJ; Hutchison LJ; Mummery LJ. Crown Copyright

Wallace v C Brian Barratt & Son Ltd [1997] APP.L.R. 03/19
Agricultural Holdings Act Arbitration. Landlord unsuccessfully sought to revoke tenancy for breach of covenant to occupy the land on basis that tenant had subcontracted work to a partnership. Appeal on point of law : Held : Arbitrator got the law right – subcontracting aspects of farming work is not the equivalent of giving up occupation. CA. 19th March 1997.
by Vice Chancellor : Morritt LJ. Crown Copyright

Zaiwalla v Elstub [1997] APP.L.R. 02/21
Bias : Abuse of process. Allegations of discrimination in favour of English / white solicitor in the Fletamentos v Effjohn litigation. CA. 21st February 1997
by Simon-Brown LJ; Morritt LJ; Waller LJ.

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.