- Home/Publications/Lloyd's Law Reports
COLOUR QUEST LTD AND OTHERS v TOTAL DOWNSTREAM UK PLC AND OTHERS
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 1
Tortious liability — Explosion at oil refinery — Vicarious liability — Employee whose actions causative of explosion at storage site employed by one company but seconded to other company managing the site — Liability for actions of employee — Application of rule in Rylands v Fletcher — Effect of consent — Private nuisance — Public nuisance — Economic loss — Whether proprietary or possessory interest in property required to claim damages — Damages claim from claimant with mere contractual rights.
TS LINES LTD v DELPHIS NV DELPHIS NV v ULRIKE F KAI FREESE GMBH & CO KG (THE “TS SINGAPORE”)
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 54
Charterparty (Time) — Off-hire — Charterers having right to cancel if vessel off-hire for 20 consecutive days — Whether charterers lawfully cancelled charter.
DEUTSCHE BANK AG AND ANOTHER v HIGHLAND CRUSADER OFFSHORE PARTNERS LP AND OTHERS
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 61
Conflict of laws — Jurisdiction — Non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of England — Respondent commencing proceedings in Texas — Applicant commencing proceedings in England — Whether anti-suit injunction should be granted.
GLOBAL PROCESS SYSTEMS INC AND ANOTHER v SYARIKAT TAKAFUL MALAYSIA BERHAD (THE “CENDOR MOPU”)
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 72
Insurance (marine) — Institute Cargo Clauses (A) — All risks cover — Oil rig damaged in course of being transported — Causation — Whether loss inevitable — Whether loss caused by inherent vice.
JONES v CHURCHER AND ANOTHER
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 94
Banking — Money mistakenly transferred to defendant’s account by claimant — Defendant’s bank alerted to mistake — Defendant withdrawing money — Whether claimant had restitutionary action for money paid by mistake — Change of position — Whether defendant’s bank had defence of ministerial receipt — Whether defendant’s bank guilty of breach of trust.
ZHANGGANG SHIPPING LTD v BRAVE BULK TRANSPORT LTD
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 115
Practice — Anti-suit injunction — Jurisdiction — Claimant obtaining default judgment against defendant arising out of contract conferring exclusive jurisdiction on High Court — Claimant bringing enforcement proceedings against applicant in New York on basis that applicant was alter ego of defendant — Applicant seeking anti-suit injunction from High Court to restrain New York proceedings — Whether court had jurisdiction to hear application.
DOLPHIN MARITIME & AVIATION SERVICES LTD v SVERIGES ANGFARTYGS ASSURANS FORENING
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 123
Conflict of laws — Jurisdiction — Claimant recovery agent bringing proceedings in England against Swedish P&I Club in tort for procuring breach of contract and unlawful means conspiracy — Whether damage occurred in England — Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001, article 5(3) — Contract — Third party — Whether claimant entitled to benefit of letter of undertaking — Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, section 1(1)(b).
IMT SHIPPING AND CHARTERING GMBH v CHANSUNG SHIPPING CO LTD (THE “ZENOVIA”)
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 139
Charterparty (Time) — Charterers giving notice of expected redelivery — Owners fixing vessel’s further employment based on expected redelivery date — Charterers subsequently giving second notice with later redelivery date — Whether charterers precluded by promissory estoppel from resiling from first notice — Whether charter contained implied term that charterers would not deliberately prevent original redelivery date being met.
NEWCASTLE BUILDING SOCIETY v MILL AND OTHERS
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 154
Banking — Legal set-off — Two financial institutions holding deposit instruments issued by the other — One of the two in administration — Clearing system for deposit instruments contained rule stating that instruments must be free from equity or set-off — Effective to prevent set-off — Insolvent Debtors Relief Acts 1729 and 1735 — Supreme Court Act 1981, section 49(2) — CPR 16.6.
SHARAB v AL-SAUD
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 160
Jurisdiction — Claim for commission for agency in aircraft sale — Whether good arguable case — Whether England and Wales clearly the appropriate forum — CPR Part 6.20(5) and (6) — Whether undertaking by defendant to submit to a foreign jurisdiction should be accepted.
BUNGE SA v ADM DO BRASIL LTDA AND OTHERS (THE “DARYA RADHE”)
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 175
Carriage by sea — Dangerous cargo — Shippers’ liability — Cargo of soya bean meal pellets alleged to have contained rats when loaded onto vessel — Whether cargo dangerous — Whether arbitrators erred in concluding that carrier was unable to prove that any particular shipper had been responsible for introducing a rat — Hague Rules, article IV, rule 6.
THE “WD FAIRWAY”
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 191
Insurance (marine) — Vessel becoming constructive total loss — Insurers not accepting notice of abandonment but making payment for constructive total loss — Vessel sold by assured to third party before all of insurers had decided to take over the vessel — Effect of sale — Rights of insurers — Applicable law — Marine Insurance Act 1906, sections 62, 63 and 79.
WESTBROOK RESOURCES LTD v GLOBE METALLURGICAL INC
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 224
Sale of goods — Goods to be screened to comply with contract — Screening delayed by bad weather — Buyer refusing to accept screened goods — Whether buyer in repudiation of contract — Whether buyer entitled to rely on contractual delivery dates — Estoppel and affirmation — Measure of damages.
BERGHOFF TRADING LTD AND OTHERS v SWINBROOK DEVELOPMENTS LTD AND OTHERS
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 233
Loan agreement — Joint venture — Construction — Partner in joint venture paying off loan from proceeds of sale of joint venture — Whether joint venture required to indemnify paying partner — Whether Resolution bound joint venture to provide indemnity.
DURHAM TEES VALLEY AIRPORT LTD v BMIBABY LTD AND ANOTHER
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 246
Contract — Certainty — Airline company agreeing with airport company to base and fly two aircraft from airport for period of 10 years — Airline company withdrawing aircraft from airport after only three years — Whether contract sufficiently certain to be enforceable — Whether implied term that airline company would operate the aircraft in a reasonable manner.
UBS AG v HSH NORDBANK AG
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 272
Conflict of laws — Jurisdiction — Defendant domiciled in an EU member state — Whether exclusive jurisdiction agreement covered the dispute — Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001, article 23.
KARAFARIN BANK v MANSOURY-DARA
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 289
Jurisdiction — Application for a stay of English proceedings — Concurrent proceedings in Iran — Abuse of process — Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, section 34.
INTERNET BROADCASTING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER v MAR LLC
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 295
Contract for supply of internet television channel — Construction of exemption clause — Defendant wrongfully terminated — Contract contained exemption clause excluding liability — Whether clause capable of excluding liability for personal wrongdoing.
SAGAL (TRADING AS BUNZ UK) v ATELIER BUNZ GMBH
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 303
Agency — Whether agent was “commercial agent” — Whether claimant entitled to compensation for termination of agency agreement — Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993, Regulations 2 and 17.
TASMAN ORIENT LINE CV v NEW ZEALAND CHINA CLAYS AND OTHERS (THE “TASMAN PIONEER”)
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 308
Carriage by sea — Deck cargo damaged following vessel’s grounding — Master failing to alert authorities of grounding and instructing crew to lie about incident — Whether carrier in breach of contract of carriage — Whether carrier entitled to rely on exemption of negligence in navigation or management of ship — Hague-Visby Rules, article IV, rule 2(a).
TRM COPY CENTRES (UK) LTD AND OTHERS v LANWALL SERVICES LTD
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 332
Bailment — Inducing breach of contract — Claimant supplied photocopying machines — Defendant persuaded customers to use its machines — Whether defendant guilty of tort of inducing breach of contract — Whether claimant’s agreements were terminable by notice by reason of being consumer hire agreements — Consumer Credit Act 1974, section 15.
WEBSTER THOMPSON LTD v J G PEARS (NEWARK) LTD OMEGA PROTEINS LTD (THIRD PARTY) NORTHERN COUNTIES MEAT LTD (FOURTH PARTY)
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 339
Sale of goods — Breach — Satisfactory quality — Reasonably fit for purpose — Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, section 4(2), (5) — Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 — Evidence — Value of hearsay evidence — Damages.
EDO CORPORATION v ULTRA ELECTRONICS LTD
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 349
Arbitration - Allegation of breach of contract involving use of confidential information - Application to court for pre-action disclosure - Whether court had jurisdiction to grant application - Arbitration Act 1996, sections 9 and 44 - Supreme Court Act 1981, section 33(2) - Civil Procedure Rules, Part 31.16.
GEORGE v COASTAL MARINE 2004 LTD (THE “BON AMI”)
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 356
Contract — Implied term — Tort — Occupier’s liability — Owner of wooden vessel contracting with wharfinger to moor vessel alongside tidal berth — Vessel grounding hollow and sustaining damage — Whether mooring contract contained implied warranty of safety — Whether wharfinger gave sufficient warning of danger — Whether claimant willingly accepted risk of grounding hollow — Whether wharfinger liable — Occupier’s Liability Act 1957, sections 2(2), 2(4) and 2(5).
MANSEL OIL LTD AND ANOTHER v TROON STORAGE TANKERS SA (THE “AILSA CRAIG”)
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 371
Charterparty (Time) — Shelltime 4 form — Charterers cancelling charter on basis that vessel not delivered — Whether charterers obliged to nominate delivery port prior to cancelling date — Time for making nomination.
SHASHOUA AND OTHERS v SHARMA
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 376
Arbitration — Parties agreeing that venue of arbitration should be England — Whether parties agreeing that seat of arbitration should be in England — Anti-suit injunction — Whether English court retained jurisdiction to grant relief — Arbitration Act 1996, sections 3, 44 and 60 — Supreme Court Act 1981, section 37 — New York Convention 1958, article II(3).
THE “ASIA STAR”
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 387
Damages — Mitigation — Charterers unable to load cargo within agreed shipment period by reason of vessel’s delay and unsuitability to receive cargo — Charterers claiming loss of profits and damages in respect of cargo not shipped or delayed shipment — Whether charterers suffered loss — Whether charterers reasonably mitigated their loss — Measure of damages recoverable.
MIDGULF INTERNATIONAL LTD v GROUPE CHIMICHE TUNISIEN
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 411
Practice — Anti-suit injunction — Disputes arising under contract for sale of sulphur — Dispute as to whether contract contained London arbitration clause — Defendant bringing proceedings in Tunisia — Claimants applying for interim anti-suit injunction — Whether injunction should be granted — Whether claimant had established sufficiently high degree of probability that contract contained London arbitration clause.
(THE “WD FAIRWAY”) (NO 3)
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 420
Insurance (marine) — Vessel becoming constructive total loss — Insurers rejecting notice of abandonment but paying for constructive total loss — Vessel sold by assured to associated company at undervalue — Insurers thereafter asserting right of salvage — Whether insurers had opted to waive salvage rights — Law applicable to proprietary effects of transfer — Renvoi — Insolvency Act 1986, section 423
VITOL SA v CONOIL PLC
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 466
Sale of goods — Agreements for sale of gasoil to be delivered by ship-to-ship transfer — Buyer failing to take up cargo — Whether binding contract concluded — Whether provision of letter of credit condition precedent to enforceability of contract — Damages — Whether “Delay Penalty Clause” enforceable by seller — Whether existence of demurrage provision disabled seller from recovering damages for buyer’s failure to lift cargo on time — Whether seller entitled to damages for storing cargo not taken up.
MASRI v CONSOLIDATED CONTRACTORS INTERNATIONAL CO SAL AND OTHERS
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 473
Practice — Judgment — Enforcement — Non-party — Judgment creditor applying for order requiring officer of judgment debtor company to attend court and provide information — Officer resident out of jurisdiction — Whether court had jurisdiction to make order — CPR 71.2 and 6.30(2).
THE "PEARL OF JEBEL ALI" AND THE "PRIDE OF AL SALAM 95"
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 484
Collision action â Vessels colliding in Suez Canal â Whether counterclaim subject to two-year limitation period â Whether court should extend time for making counterclaim â Merchant Shipping Act 1995, sections 190(3) and 190(5).
UR POWER GMBH v KUOK OILS AND GRAINS PTE LTD
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 495
Arbitration — Dispute as to whether parties had entered into agreement — Jurisdiction — Substantial irregularity — Error of law — Whether obligation to open a letter of credit was a condition precedent to the making of a contract of sale — Separability of arbitration clause — Time limits for application to court under two-tier arbitration — Whether time should be extended — Arbitration Act 1996, sections 7, 30, 67, 68, 69, 70 and 80(3).
WASA INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE CO AGF INSURANCE LTD v LEXINGTON INSURANCE CO
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 508
Reinsurance — Facultative policy — Insurers covering liability against pollution losses for three-year period — Reinsurance taken out on same terms and conditions for 36 months — US courts ruling that insurers were liable for losses going back many years — Whether reinsurers liable to indemnify reinsured — Back-to-back cover — Meaning of deductible clause.
STONE & ROLLS LTD v MOORE STEPHENS
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 537
Negligence — Auditors acting negligently in failing to notice that company was defrauding creditors — Action by company’s liquidators — Whether ex turpi causa rule precluded action — Whether actions of sole shareholder were attributed to company — Scope of rule in In re Hampshire Land Co [1896] 2 Ch 743.
ACCENTUATE LTD v ASIGRA INC
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 599
Arbitration — Agency — Agreement governed by Ontario law — Obligation to go to arbitration in Ontario — Arbitrators applying Ontario law and dismissing agent’s claim for compensation — Whether arbitration clause binding — Permission for service outside the jurisdiction — Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993, Regulations 17 and 19 — CPR 6.20.
PETROPLUS MARKETING AG v SHELL TRADING INTERNATIONAL LTD (THE “NINAE”)
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 611
Sale of goods (fob) — Contract for sale of high sulphur fuel oil — Price based on Platts quotation for bill of lading date — Contract providing for payment in full without deduction — Delay in shipment caused by sellers’ breach of contract — Market price of oil increasing between last contractual shipment date and actual shipment date — Whether sellers precluded from recovering increase in price caused by delay in shipment — Whether sellers seeking to rely on own wrong.
HIGHLAND CRUSADER OFFSHORE PARTNERS LLP AND OTHERS v DEUTSCHE BANK AG AND ANOTHER
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 617
Jurisdiction — Non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of England — Respondent commencing proceedings in Texas — Applicant commencing proceedings in England — Whether anti-suit injunction should be granted.
MEDITERRANEAN SALVAGE & TOWAGE LTD v SEAMAR TRADING & COMMERCE INC (THE “REBORN”)
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 639
Charterparty (Voyage) — Specific load port named in voyage charter — Port containing several berths to which vessel could be directed to load — Vessel sustaining damage while berthing — Whether charterparty containing implied term that charterers must nominate safe berth.
COWDEN AND ANOTHER v BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 653
Carriage by air — Montreal Convention — Loss of and delay to luggage — Whether claimants entitled to damages for distress and inconvenience — Meaning of “damage” — Montreal Convention, articles 17 and 19.
COMMERCIAL MARINE & PILING LTD v PIERSE CONTRACTING LTD
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 659
Conflict of laws — Jurisdiction — Guarantee — Irish company guaranteeing debt owed in England — Whether obligation in question to be performed in England — English law applicable to guarantee — Debtor required to seek out creditor — Rome Convention 1980, article 4.2 and 4.5 — Council Regulation EC (No) 44/2001, article 5.
ENVIROCO LTD v FARSTAD SUPPLY A/S (THE “FAR SERVICE”)
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 666
Charterparty — Exemption clause allocating insurable risk between shipowners and charterers and their “Affiliates” — Vessel sustaining fire damage during cleaning of oil tanks by service company related to charterers — Whether service company entitled to benefit of exemption clause on basis that it was an “Affiliate” of charterers — Companies Act 1985, sections 736(1)(c) and 736A(7).
KG BOMINFLOT BUNKERGESELLSCHAFT FÜR MINERALÖLE MBH & CO KG v PETROPLUS MARKETING AG (THE “MERCINI LADY”)
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 679
Sale of goods (fob) — Contract for sale of gasoil — Cargo conforming with specification on shipment but failing to conform at discharge — Whether contract contained implied term that goods would be of satisfactory quality following a normal voyage — Sale of Goods Act 1979, sections 14(2) and 14(3).
LANSAT SHIPPING CO LTD v GLENCORE GRAIN BV (THE “PARAGON”)
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 688
Charterparty (Time) — Late redelivery — Charterparty clause providing that in event of late redelivery charterers will pay market rate of hire from 30th day before contractual redelivery date until actual redelivery — Whether clause a penalty.
PAPAS OLIO JSC v GRAINS & FOURRAGES SA AND ANOTHER
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 697
Arbitration — FOSFA — Appeal against award to be made within 42 days — Whether award sent to appellant’s correct address so as to trigger running of time — FOSFA, rules 6, 7 and 11.
THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD v JALDHI OVERSEAS PTE LTD (THE “RISHIKESH”)
[2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 704
Admiralty practice — Maritime attachment — Jurisdiction — Attachment of electronic fund transfers in intermediary bank — Whether funds “defendant’s…property” — Whether funds subject to maritime attachment — Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, Rule B.