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.
 
Action Navigation Inc v Bottiglieri Navigation Spa [2005] Int.Com.L.R. 02/16
Challenge to award – off hire clauses in a charter-party. Failed challenge – reasons not as clear as might be desired and delivered late – delay in excess of a year from hearing. Commercial Court. 16th February 2005
by Mr Justice Aikens : Crown Copyright .

AIC Ltd v Its Testing Services (UK) Ltd [2005] Int.Com.L.R. 10/07
Inspection companies : Duties re testing of cargo on loading and discharge. Commercial Court. 7th October 2005
by Mr. Justice Cresswell : Crown Copyright

Borgship Tankers Inc. v Product Transport Corporation Ltd. [2005] Int.Com.L.R. 02/25
Cargo claims under a charterparty subject to the HVR are subject to a 1 year time bar. Claimants sought damages for wasted bunkers. The event arose out of dirty holds that required cleaning. Held : This was not a cargo claim. No bar. Commercial Court. 25th February 2005
by Mr Justice Cresswell : Crown Copyright :

C V Scheepvaartonderneming Flintermar v Sea Malta Co Ltd [2005] Int.Com.L.R. 01/25
E&I : Whether an injury to a ship\'s chief officer was the responsibility of its owners or its charterers. The injury occurred while the chief officer was engaged in the closing of the ship\'s hatch, but it was caused by the negligence of the charterer’s stevedores in the overall course of loading and discharging operations. Held : Charterer to indemnify owner. CA. 25th January 2005.
by Waller LJ; Rix LJ. Sir Martin Nourse. Crown Copyright

Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd. v Furness Withy (Australia) Pty [2005] Int.Com.L.R. 05/20
Meaning and effect of off hire in a single trip charterparty. Commercial Court. 20th May 2005
by Mr. Michael Crane Q.C. : Crown Copyright

Laemthong International Lines Co Ltd v Abdullah Mohammed Fahem & Co [2005] Int.Com.L.R. 05/05
Enforceability of letter of indemnity for delivery of cargo without production of bills of lading. CA. 5th May 2005.
by V.C. Clarke LJ; Neuberger LJ. Crown Copyright

Mora Shipping Inc of Monrovia, Liberia v Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance Sa [2005] Int.Com.L.R. 07/28
General Average adjustment : seaworthiness. Underwriters refused to comply with GA adjustment on grounds of unseaworthiness which would negate the right to GA. Owners sought enforcement in UK. Underwriters domiciled in various EU states. Held : In absence of Choice of English Law and Jurisdiction clause, under Brussels enforcement had to be sought individually before the courts of the respective states of domicile. CA. 28th July 2005
by Ward LJ; Clarke LJ; Neuberger LJ. Crown Copyright

Rafaela : JI MacWilliam Company Inc v. Mediterranean Shipping Company SA [2005] Int.Com.L.R. 02/16
Does the HVR apply to a straight / named bill of lading -? Held : YES. Significance : HVR limitation levels apply. House of Lords. 16th February 2005.
by Lords Bingham; Nicholls; Steyn : Rodger; Brown. Parliamentary Copyright.

Sabo SA v United Arab Shipping Company (SAG) [2005] Int.Com.L.R. 03/03
Shipper privy to misrepresentations in B/L as to name of feeder vessel - and through shipment : aimed at deceiving banks and endorsees. Accordingly shipper did not rely on misstatements in bills of lading and had no course of action. Commercial Court. 3rd March 2005
by Mr. Justice Cooke : Crown Copyright

SHV Gas Supply & Trading SAS v Naftomar Shipping & Trading Co Ltd Inc [2005] Int.Com.L.R. 11/15
Laycan under charterparty & fob and eta under cif contrasted. Laycan from earliest date of loading to date of cancellation if not loaded : eta - must be an honest and reasonable estimate : port of loading subject to adverse weather : eta 17-19 : by 27th entitled to cancel cif contract. Commercial Court. 15th November 2005.
by Mr Justice Christopher Clarke. Crown Copyright

Tidebrook Maritime Corporation v Vitol SA of Geneva MT \"Front Commander\" [2005] Int.Com.L.R. 10/21
Commencement of laytime when a vessel arrives before the first layday, arising under the standard form of Asbatankvoy voyage charter. Commercial Court. 21st October 2005
by His Honour Judge Mackie 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.