RS Shipping Bulletin - January 13, 2011

more+
less-

Covered In This Issue

1 ARBITRATION . . .3

1 . 1 HIGH COURT CONSIDERS THE STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED IN AN APPLICATION TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR UNDER SECTION 18 ARBITRATION ACT 1996 . . .3

1 . 2 BY ENDORSING A COA AS GUARANTOR , A PARTY AGREES TO THE ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF THE GUARANTEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IN THE COA. . .4

1 . 3 SECTION 69 ARBITRATION ACT 1996 DOES NOT PERMIT THE COURT TO ENTERTAIN AN APPEAL ON A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE BASIS THAT THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO SUCH AN APPEAL . . .4

1 . 4 SINGLE NOTICE OF ARBITRATION GIVEN UNDER TEN BILLS OF LADING HELD TO COMMENCE TEN SEPARATE ARBITRATIONS RATHER THAN A SINGLE CONSOLIDATED ARBITRATION . . .5

1 . 5 SUPREME COURT REFUSES ENFORCEMENT OF ICC AWARD ON THE GROUNDS OF A PARTY NOT BEING BOUND BY THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT, DESPITE THE TRIBUNAL’S PREVIOUS FINDINGS TO THE CONTRARY. . . .6

2 CONTRACT . . .8

2 . 1 HIGH COURT CONSIDERS WHETHER A CONCLUDED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CAN BE RESCINDED FOR NON-DISCLOSURE, AND WHETHER IT SHOULD DECLINE TO ENFORCE A VALID AND BINDING SETTLEMENT DUE TO A FURTHER SUBSEQUENT SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES . . .8

2 . 2 THE PHRASE “TERMS AND CONDITIONS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST” COULD INCORPORATE TERMS OF TRADING INTO A CONTRACT. . .8

3 COSTS. . .10

3 . 1 WHEN ASSESSING A SOLICITOR’S BILL OF COSTS ON THE APPLICATION OF A THIRD PARTY LIABLE FOR THOSE COSTS, THE COURT MUST ASSESS THE BILL AS IF THE CLIENT ITSELF HAD REQUIRED THE ASSESSMENT . . .10

3 . 2 THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT THE COSTS OF PRELIMINARY ISSUES WILL BE ASSESSED IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING A HEARING OF THOSE ISSUES . . .11

3 . 3 TRIBUNAL CONSIDERS APPROPRIATE COSTS ORDER WHERE BOTH CLAIMANT AND DEFENDANT HAVE SUCCEEDED ON DIFFERENT ISSUES . . .11

4 INSURANCE . . .12

4 . 1 THE FINANCIAL RESTRICTIONS (IRAN) ORDER 200 9 AND A LICENCE MADE UNDER IT DID NOT RENDER ILLEGAL THE PROVISION OF COVER BY A P&I CLUB TO AN IRANIAN SHIPOWNER, NOR HAD THE DECEMBER 2010 REED SMITH 2 RS SHIPPING BULLETIN INSURANCE CONTRACT BEEN DISCHARGED BY REASON OF FRUSTRATION . . .12

5 JURISDICTION . . .14

5 . 1 THE COMMERCIAL COURT CONSIDERS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTINUATION OF AN ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION . . .14

5 . 2 A COURT IS NOT DEEMED TO BE SEISED OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE JUDGMENTS REGULATION IF THE COURT FEE HAS NOT BEEN PAID . . .15

6 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE . . .16

6 . 1 A SETTLEMENT OFFER EXPRESSED TO BE OPEN FOR ACCEPTANCE FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME I S N O T CAPABLE OF BEING A PART 36 OFFER . . .16

6 . 2 HIGH COURT CONSIDERS PROCEDURE FOR SERVICE OF A CLAIM FORM ON MEMBERS OF A PARTNERSHIP . . .16

6 . 3 HIGH COURT CONSIDERS WHETHER AMENDMENTS CAN BE MADE TO A STATEMENT OF CASE AFTER THE RELEVANT LIMITATION PERIOD HAS EXPIRED . . .17

6 . 4 COMMERCIAL COURT SUMMARISES KEY PRINCIPLES GOVERNING APPLICATIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON DISPUTED ISSUES OF FACT . . .18

6 . 5 HIGH COURT CONSIDERS THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT CAN EXTEND TIME FOR PAYMENT BY A DEFENDANT WHERE IT HAS ADMITTED THE CLAIM . . .19

7 SHIPPING . . .20

7 . 1 COMMERCIAL COURT CONSIDERS WHETHER A DEMURRAGE CLAIM WAS BARRED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF A PREVIOUS CLAIM, AND FURTHER WHETHER THE SECOND CLAIM WAS IN ANY EVENT TIME BARRED. . .20

7 . 2 TRIBUNAL CONSIDERS ISSUES OF CAUSATION IN THE CONTEXT OF OWNERS’ LIABILITY FOR DELAY ARISING OUT OF DAMAGE TO CARGO. . .21

7 . 3 BIMCO LAUNCHES NEW STANDARD CLAUSES ADDRESSING THE IMPENDING EU RULES ON ADVANCE CARGO DECLARATION . . .22

7 . 4 DOES SECTION 2(4) COGSA 1992 CREATE A SEPARATE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PERSONS WITH AN INTEREST IN THE GOODS WHO ARE NOT HOLDERS OF THE BILL OF LADING? . . .22

Please see full Alert below for further information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.