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.
Borealis Ab v Stargas Ltd & Bergesen D.Y. A/S : Berge Sisar [2001] Int.Com.L.R. 03/22
Uncargoworthiness - contaminated cargo : unsuccessful appeal from CA. House of Lords. 22nd March 2001.
by Lords Hoffmann; Mackay; Cooke ; Hope ; Hobhouse. Parliamentary Copyright..

ELF Oil UK Ltd v Besktas Denizcilik VE Tasimacilik Sanayi VE Ticaret AS [2001] Int.Com.L.R. 05/17
Time bar Hague Rules : Claim for contaminated cargo. Failed application to appeal. CA 17th May 2001.
by Mance LJ. Crown Copyright.

Glencore Grain Ltd v Flacker Shipping Ltd [2001] Int.Com.L.R. 01/25
What are the rights of owners to demurrage and charterers to despatch when a charterparty provides for a notice to be given at the discharge port to trigger the start of laytime but only an invalid notice is given, and yet the vessel commences and completes discharge over an extended period in circumstances in which a substantial claim to demurrage would otherwise have arisen. The arbitrators decided that laytime commenced to run as if the notice had been correctly given at the first opportunity. The charterers say that was wrong and as no valid notice was ever given no demurrage ever became payable but, to the contrary, they have a claim for despatch. Commercial Court. 25th January 2001
by Mr Justice Langley. Crown Copyright.

MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v \"Tychy\", Owners Of Ship [2001] Int.Com.L.R. 07/24
Successful appeal against determination of admiralty jurisdiction under s21 Supreme Court Act 1980. Case sent back to court to determine whether liability lay in a personam action for unpaid slot hire. CA. 24th July 2001.
by Lord Phillips; Jonathan Parker LJ; Lord Mustill. Crown Copyright

Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation [2001] Int.Com.L.R. 01/26
Fraudulently dated bill of lading : Unsuccessful appeal against liability in fraud & deceit. CA 26th January 2001.
by Henry LJ; Potter LJ; Mr Justice Wall. Crown Copyright.

Starsin : Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd [2001] Int.Com.L.R. 01/23
Test to determine between owners and charterers bills of lading. Tortious liability of owner in tort – impact of HVR. CA. 23rd January 2001
by Sir Andrew Morritt VC; Chadwick LJ; Rix LJ. Crown Copyright.

TICC Ltd v Cosco (UK) Ltd [2001] Int.Com.L.R. 12/05
Whether or not a carrier\'s freight surcharge known as a \"Peak Summer Surcharge\" (the surcharge”) was incorporated into contracts evidenced by bills of lading (Freight Collect) for the carriage of goods from Hong Kong to Felixstowe. C.A. 5th December 2001.
by Ward LJ; Kay LJ; Rix LJ. Crown Copyright

Vinmar International Ltd. v Theresa Navigation SA [2001] Int.Com.L.R. 03/09
Uncargoworthiness : Carrier admitted vessel was uncargoworthy for ethelyne due to contamination : during loading an early test indicated contamination : was the cargo owner responsible for further contamination by continuing to load. Court held : Shipper put in a dilemma by carrier - carrier liable. Commercial Court. 9th March 2001
by Mr Justice Tomlinson : 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.