Commercial Disputes Weekly Issue 283 5 May 2026

MARITIME – ARBITRATION

The Commercial Court has allowed an appeal against an arbitration award on the basis that the Tribunal erred on a point of law. The claim was for demurrage by the shipowners and was successful before the Tribunal. Charterers challenged the award asserting that laytime did not commence running because an invalid notice of readiness (“NOR”) was issued. The court held that the Tribunal had decided that laytime began to run when cargo operations commenced, even though the NOR was invalid. The decision was not based on any waiver argument. The court held that the legal position was that laytime does not start to run where there is an invalid NOR unless the invalidity is waived or there is estoppel or contrary agreement between the parties. There had been no such waiver or agreement between the parties. The court rejected the argument that there was a principle of deemed waiver which requires a less rigorous test of waiver than an actual waiver. The court varied the award but remitted the question of costs to the Tribunal.

Trans Trade Rk Sa v Sebat Shipping and Trading Company [2026] EWHC 950 (Comm), 28 April 2026

AVIATION – FRAUD

Logix agreed to buy two aircraft engines from Siam Aero but during the process fraudsters provided false bank details with the result that the purchase price was paid to the fraudsters. Logix tried to recover the money by alleging that Siam Aero were in breach of a confidentiality clause in a letter of understanding between the parties. The Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court decision that although arguably Siam Aero was in breach of the clause by unwittingly providing confidential information to the fraudsters, that was not the effective cause of Logix’s loss. The loss was caused by the fraudulent scheme through which the fraudsters intercepted and amended communications, thus deceiving Logix. Any breach of the confidentiality clause therefore only provided an opportunity for the fraud. The claim was struck out as there were no reasonable grounds for bringing it.

Logix Aero Ireland Ltd v Siam Aero Repair Company Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 510, 29 April 2026

LIMITATION

The County Court has confirmed that an application to restore a claim was made within the time limit even where the wrong fee was paid. The court issued the application even though the fee was incorrect. The court held that authority relating to the bringing of a claim under the Limitation Act 1980 was applicable to compliance with a CPR Part 23 application. Making the application and paying the fee are two separate events and there is no requirement that the fee be paid at the same time as the making of the application. Once the application was issued, it was clearly made even if the wrong fee had been paid. The court had ways of recovering the additional fee and dealing with abuse if required.

All Seasons Lettings Ltd v Pandya [2026] EWCC 19, 23 April 2026

BUILDING SAFETY

The First Tier Tribunal has provided further guidance on whether a building is a “relevant building” in relation to the making of a remediation contribution order. The relevant flats formed part of a wider building. One end of the building was seven storeys and 21 metres high. However, the relevant flats were at the other end of the building that had three storeys and was not 11 metres high. The tribunal considered a number of different factors including the entrance to the building, structure and connections and services. It concluded that the relevant flats were not in a structurally detached building, nor were self-contained and so formed part of the wider “relevant building” for the purposes of section 117 of the Building Safety Act 2022.

A2 Dominion South Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd, Pieris House [2026] UKFTT, 2 April 2026