Knowledge Counsel London
"…to ensure that the performing vessel tendered NOR at the Loading Terminal at a time consistent with arrival at the Discharge Terminal within the Indicative Discharge Date, given a reasonable assessment of the customary loading and voyage time."
COMMODITIES
The Commercial Court has considered termination provisions in a contract for the sale of methyl tertbutyl that incorporated the BP Oil International Limited General Terms and Conditions for Sales and Purchases of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products and was initially agreed on a DES basis, but changed two days later for CIF terms. There was correspondence about whether the nominated vessel would fit the jetties at the discharge terminal. The cargo was loaded on the nominated vessel but then the seller notified the buyer that there was a delay in the estimated time of arrival at the discharge port. The buyer purported to terminate the contract on the basis that the seller had not validly nominated a vessel capable of discharging within the discharge window. The court held that the change from DES to CIF meant that the delivery dates were no longer binding, but only indicative. A valid nomination had been given at the loading terminal (as required by the relevant CIF terms). The seller was not in breach and the buyer was not entitled to terminate. The court also found that the buyer had not validly rejected the vessel when nominated.
Finco International AG v Integra Petrochemicals Europe AG [2026] EWHC 727 (Comm), 27 March 2026
LANDLORD AND TENANT
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has provided guidance on whether the right to manage can be acquired by the tenants of two adjacent blocks (9 and 10) that formed part of a larger building. The landlord had challenged the acquisition of those rights on the basis that the buildings were not self-contained as required by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The Upper Tribunal emphasised that the 2002 Act should be construed in a practical way to give effect to the rights that it conferred. It upheld the First Tier Tribunal decision that the services could be made independent for blocks 9 and 10 without significant interruption. The right-to-manage company could then provide services independently to the two blocks.
ARBITRATION
In a dispute arising out of an egg supply agreement, the Commercial Court has set aside the arbitrator’s decision where it was made on the basis of an argument that had not been raised by the parties in their pleadings or submissions. Further it was argued that when clarification was requested pursuant to section 57 Arbitration Act 1996, the parties were not given sufficient time to provide comments. The arbitrator’s finding of liability based on an implied term came out of the blue. The arbitrator should have asked the parties for submissions on the implied term that he was considering adopting before he made his award on that basis. This serious irregularity led to substantial injustice for Stonegate. The award was remitted to the arbitrator for reconsideration.
Stonegate Farmers Ltd v Chucks Farm Ltd [2026] EWHC 742 (Comm), 27 February 2026
BUILDING SAFETY ACT
The Technology and Construction Court has provided further guidance on the application of the building liability order scheme put in place by the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”). In particular it considered the situation where the contractor is now in administration and whether related companies were liable. The court concluded that it was able to make an anticipatory building liability order against the other group company defendants (“BLO defendants”) and confirmed that any liability the contractor had to the claimants was also the joint and several liability of each of the BLO defendants. An adjudicator’s decision for £14.9m had already been made against the contractor and the court held that this was a “relevant liability” under section 130 of the BSA. Weighing all the relevant factors, it was just and equitable to provide that the BLO defendants were also jointly and severally liable for the sums owed under the adjudicator’s decision.
Key contacts
Knowledge Counsel London
Partner London
