Jim Leighton’s Post

This case illustrates the complex relationship that can exist between proceedings brought against two different sea carriers arising out of the same event. French Courts addressed the following question: how can judgments issued in one of the proceedings be used in the other proceedings? Read more in our latest blog from Antoine Guillemot. #Reedsmith #Shipping https://lnkd.in/eGmyTttW

Jurisdictional challenge- was there a binding contract? The Merchant did not provide cargo to be loaded at Houston in repudiatory breach of the booking note, and the Carrier claimed dead freight of US $100,275.00. As provided by Clause 11. (h) of the booking note, the amount invoiced represented the gross freight of US $140,275.00 less estimated port and stevedore costs saved of US $15,000.00 and US$25,000.00, respectively. As the invoice remained unpaid, the Carrier proceeded to arbitration. Read more: https://lnkd.in/dXbQPMhu

RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV: The Supreme Court has reached a verdict on the force majeure case, addressing a "fundamental point of principle." This decision holds significant importance within the legal realm. 15 May 2024 OVERVIEW The Supreme Court, in its ruling on RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV [2024] UKSC 18, which was delivered on Wednesday, May 15, 2024, has granted MUR's appeal, thereby reinstating the verdict of Jacobs J. The court, in complete agreement, has determined that the force majeure clause contained within the parties' Charter Party Agreement (COA) allows MUR to temporarily halt its selection of vessels for performance due to anticipated delays in RTI's payment of freight in US dollars, as stipulated by the COA. These delays are a direct result of the sanctions imposed on RTI's parent company. The primary matter presented to the Supreme Court concerned the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision to support the tribunal's ruling in the underlying arbitration. The tribunal has come to a conclusion that MUR is unable to invoke force majeure as it has failed to meet the requirements outlined in clause 36.3(d). According to this clause, an event or situation can only be deemed force majeure if it cannot be "overcome by reasonable endeavors (sic)." The Court of Appeal, in line with the tribunal, contended that a problem or situation is deemed resolved only when all its adverse effects have been completely averted. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court adopted a distinct perspective, acknowledging the appeal as a profoundly significant principle with the potential to be universally applicable to all force majeure clauses. The central issue being considered is whether the existence of an informal solution to a contractual deadlock might impede a party from invoking force majeure. The court raised concerns about the potential consequences of non-contractual solutions, as they could weaken the importance of the parties' contractual rights and overlook the essential role of certainty in commercial agreements. #arbitration. #Force_Majeure

🇰🇬🇬🇧A Kyrgyz court ruled on interim measures for a Kyrgyz company's claim for damages in the LCIA. Having assessed the reality of damage and the proportionality of the measures requested, the court applied two interim measures at the same time - arresting the aircraft and prohibiting the State Civil Aviation Agency from deregistering the aircraft. In fact, the Civil Procedure Code allows interim measures only for institutional arbitration. Ad hoc arbitration does not enjoy such support from the kyrgyz courts. This court decision is unique in its way, because ▪️supporting acts in relation to international/foreign arbitration courts is rare in our country; ▪️there were no obstacles on the part of the court with notarization of the arbitration agreement and proof of acceptance of the request for proceedings, which often happens with local arbitration ▪️the procedure was prompt and adequate. The court decision was not appealed. Claimant’s interests were represented by a Kyrgyz lawyers.

A recent judgement of the UK Supreme Court (RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV) illustrates a philosophy of contract interpretation which could inform decisions of arbitral tribunals beyond England. It is a philosophy which primarily values certainty in commercial contracts. RTI Ltd (RTI) and MUR Shipping BV (MUR) concluded a contract of affreightment. Under the contract, MUR agreed to carry bauxite for RTI. The contract required RTI to pay in USD. US sanctions impeded the RTI's ability to make USD payments. MUR invoked the force majeure clause. RTI rejected MUR’s notice of force majeure and offered to pay MUR in EUR instead and to cover the cost of transferring the payment from EUR to USD. RTI based its offer on the provision of the contract which required the party affected by force majeure to exercise reasonable endeavours to overcome it. MUR rejected this offer and suspended operations under the contract. The main issue on the appeal before the Supreme Court was whether the exercise of reasonable endeavours may require the party affected to accept an offer of non-contractual performance from the other contracting party in order to overcome the effects of the event or state of affairs. In particular, the Court was to decide whether based on the reasonable endeavours clause MUR was obliged to accept RTI’s offer of the payment in EUR instead of USD. The Court decided MUR did not have to accept this variation of the contract. The Court put forward a number of arguments. The argument based on the principle of certainty and predictability in commercial contracts stroke a cord with me. MUR had a better case, because it was anchored in the contract: the contract did not require acceptance of an offer of non-contractual performance. The Court rejected the argument that that reasonable business people would favour RTI’s position. If the reasonableness was to trump the required contractual performance this would introduce uncertainty. The court also rejected the argument based on the purpose of the contract. It is based on the assumption that there is a single purpose underlying any particular obligation and there may be no clear purpose at all. As an arbitrator I subscribe to this philosophy. I think arbitrators first and foremost have a duty to decide the case in accordance with the contract. All too often arbitrators look for a “fair” or “reasonable” solution, even if the contract is clear and the solution proposed by the arbitrators is at odds with the contract. Some even think that this is the essence of arbitration, as a “business friendly” mechanism of dispute resolution. Others argue that arbitrators’ powers are vast and should not be constrained by such petty details as the wording of the contract. I would urge humility. Yes, arbitrators have enormous powers but they should be very careful how to use them. Otherwise, business people may decide that arbitration is too unpredictable and will take their disputes elsewhere, as indeed many have done.

https://lnkd.in/eWZBpkWh I disagree that these soft changes to the #IBA #arbitration guidelines bring such rules up to date with arbitral compliance. I think that those rules are too lax & still let a non-independent arbitrator accept their arbitral appointment in all impunity.

The end of April saw the close of Hunt ADR's sixth year running the ABTA Arbitration Scheme. It was the third busiest year to date, following a 70% drop in cases during the COVID years. We have a video explaining more about the scheme on our YouTube page which you can access here https://lnkd.in/eFQymiUB. If you are a trade body or an organisation with moderate to high volumes of consumer disputes then now is a good time to discuss your options with us. Email gregg@huntadr.com or DM me for more information #arbitraton #consumerdisputes #consumerarbitration

Muthu Jagannath sheds light on the intricacies of Back2Back contracts, emphasizing the risks posed by traditional business practices that may appear convenient but lack robust legal backing. The essence of trust in business is inversely proportional to enforceability of rights. Explore more on #MaritimeLaw #CarriageLaws #Charterparties #MaritimeClaims #Admiralty #ContractLaw in this insightful piece: https://lnkd.in/dkEg4ZJm #LegalInsights #legalupdates #MaritimeLaw #CarriageLaws #lawofcontract #liability #damages #MaritimeClaim #Admiralty #commonlaw #SEAMaritimeLaw #SG #India #LitigationUpdate #DisputeAvoidance #DisputeResolution #FrieghtForwarders #NVOCCs

👉 TDM #Maritime #Law #Arbitration: Procedural and Substantive Issues - free excerpt https://lnkd.in/gCPkA58

Minmetals Logistics Zhejiang Co Ltd v The Owners and Underwriters of the MV Smart and Another (573/2023) [2024] ZASCA 129 Summary: Maritime law – s 5(1) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 (the Act) – application to compel litigant to produce documents – documents arising from private arbitration in London between the litigant and a peregrinus third party – documents alleged to be confidential – whether third party has a direct and substantial interest in application to compel – whether third party should be joined to application to compel – whether an Admiralty Court has the power in terms of s 5(1) of the Act to join peregrinus third party – whether order for joinder of third party granted pursuant to such power appealable. 👉: https://lnkd.in/dY9UCfp4