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.
AIC Ltd v ITS Testing Services (UK) Ltd \"The Kriti Palm\" [2006] Int.Com.L.R. 11/28
ITS used the wrong test for oil and certified it as contract compliant : Was ITS liable for losses sustained due to problems at discharge? Held by majority decision - YES. Finding of deceit overturned - but liability for concealment : Was time bar missed - NO. CA. 28th November 2006
by Buxton LJ; Rix LJ; Sir Martin Nourse. Crown Copyright

Brit Syndicates Ltd v Italaudit SPA [2006] Int.Com.L.R. 03/03
Insurance non disclosure : GTI acted as an umbrella organisation for members. The members, including Italaudit were insured with Brit. GTI had a separate policy to cover any liability it might have as the umbrella organisation for the acts of its members. Brit avoided Italaudit’s policy for non-disclosure and purported to avoid GTI’s policy on the grounds that it was back to back with the Italaudit policy and thus simultaneously avoided. Court disagreed L The GTI policy was self standing and not tainted by non-disclosure. Commercial Court. 3rd March 2006
by Mr Justice Langley : Crown Copyright

Ease Faith Ltd v Leonis Marine Management Ltd [2006] Int.Com.L.R. 02/23
Reasonable dispatch : Tug wrongfully proceeded at half speed pending payment of final stage of hire : vessel arrived late resulting in loss of sale of vessel bound for scrap. Held : Tow liable. Commercial Court. 23rd February 2006
by Mr Justice Andrew Smith. Crown Copyright

ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee Spa v Chevron USA Inc [2006] Int.Com.L.R. 06/09
Fob - laycan : vessel arrived in time - but loading delayed beyond laycan : Buyer repudiated the contract : Whether lawful? Held : No : Seller liable for demurrage : laycan gives seller right to repudiate if vessel does not arrive before expiry of laycan : not for benefit of buyer. Commercial Court. 9th June 2006
by Mr Justice Langley : Crown Copyright.

HBC Hamburg Bulk Carriers GmbH & Co KG v. Tangshan Haixing Shipping Co Ltd [2006] APP.L.R. 12/15
Off hire clause – cancellation clause if off hire for more than 30 days : Waiver. Award upheld in owners favour. Commercial Court. 15th December 2006
by Mr Justice Morison. Crown Copyright

Independent Petroleum Group Ltd v Seacarriers Count Pte Ltd [2006] Int.Com.L.R. 12/12
In determining whether a port is unsafe for the purposes of a safe port warranty in a voyage charterparty, is the relevant question whether the port is unsafe for the chartered vessel itself or is it sufficient for the owners to show that the port is unsafe for other vessels? Held : Port prospectively unsafe - appeal dismissed. Commercial Court. 12th December 2006
by Mr Justice Toulson: Crown Copyright

Tidebrook Maritime Corporation v Vitol SA of Geneva (\"Front Commander\") [2006] Int.Com.L.R. 07/05
Laytime - demurrage : What happens if charterers require a vessel to tender her notice of readiness, to berth, and to begin loading, all before the contractual commencement of the laydays? If her owners accept those orders without obtaining the charterers\' consent to an express stipulation that laytime is to start counting before the contractual commencement of the laydays, do the charterers obtain a period of free loading time? Held : No. CA. 5th July 2006
by Buxton LJ; Rix LJ; Scott Babker LJ. Crown Copyright.

Transfield Shipping Inc of Panama v Mercator Shipping Inc of Monrovia [2006] APP.L.R. 12/01
Appeal against the basis of damages award. Held “To award damages in this case on the basis of the difference between the market and the charter rate for the overrun would compensate the Owners for only a fraction of the true loss caused by the breach. In compensating them for the whole of it the majority did not, in my judgement, err in law. I shall, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.” Commercial Court. 1st December 2006
by Mr Justice Christopher Clarke. Crown Copyright .

Ullises Shipping Corp v FAL Shipping Co Ltd Rev 1 [2006] Int.Com.L.R. 07/14
Chartered vessel arrested by authorities for breaking UN oil embargo in Irac. Whether charterer liable to owner for loss of vessel. Held : Yes. Commercial Court. 14th July 2006
by Mr Justice Colman : 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.