Bitesize know how from the English Courts
Knowledge Counsel London
"Owners’ case proceeds on the incorrect premise that the Tribunal awarded Charterers damages for late performance, when in fact, Charterers were claiming, and the Tribunal awarded, damages for non-performance of the shipment ... "
MARITIME – ARBITRATION
Under a contract of affreightment, charterers declared laycan of 12-15 October to load a cargo of fertiliser but owners’ purported nomination of a vessel was invalid as the ETA was later than the specified laycan. Charterers sourced an alternative vessel from the spot market to carry the cargo. In arbitration charterers successfully claimed damages on the basis of owners’ breach of contract in failing to make a contractual vessel nomination. Owners challenged the arbitration award asserting that there was delayed delivery rather than non-delivery and submitting that damages awarded should not be calculated on a contract/market loss of bargain basis. The challenge under section 69 Arbitration Act 1996 failed; the tribunal had not made an error of law. Charterers’ nomination related to a specific cargo, as well as specific dates and the fact that the invalidly nominated vessel subsequently carried a different cargo for the charterers does not mean that there was late performance, rather than non-performance. When owners were unable to provide a vessel, the primary obligation to load the cargo was replaced by a secondary one to pay damages, which would be calculated on the orthodox measure of the difference between charter and market rates.
Transatlantica Commodities Pte Ltd v Eurochem Trading GmbH [2026] EWHC 1494 (Comm), 18 June 2026
BUILDING SAFETY
The First-tier Tribunal has provided useful guidance on the types of costs that would be included in a remediation contribution order. The City of Lincoln Council was applying for such an order against the freeholder of One The Brayford, a mixed residential and commercial premises building. The Tribunal held that the direct costs of providing temporary accommodation fall within section 124(2A)(c) of the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”), but that staff overtime and legal costs would not fall within the definition of temporary accommodation costs incurred following a decant from a relevant building. The Tribunal also confirmed that the fact that the Council would incur the costs in any event under its statutory duties as a housing authority did not preclude them from being recovered under the BSA.
City of Lincoln Council v Plantview Ltd [2026] FTT, 15 June 2026
CONTRACT INTERPRETATION
The claimant contracted with the defendant during the Covid-19 pandemic for the latter to supply 1000 medical ventilator units. A dispute arose when the defendant failed to deliver almost all the units on time. The claimant alleged fraudulent misrepresentation of the defendant’s ability to deliver the units on time, as well as repudiatory breach and unjust enrichment. Among the many issues for decision, the court held that no representations had been made. In addition, as a matter of construction of the contract time was not of the essence such that the delivery schedule was a condition of the contract. The defendant was therefore not in repudiatory breach in failing to deliver on time. The claimant was entitled only to a refund of the cost of 650 units that were not delivered on time.
CONSTRUCTION
The Technology and Construction Court has considered Part 7 and 8 proceedings in relation to delays to a construction project under a JCT contract. An adjudicator had made an award in the employer’s favour, who then sought to enforce it by way of Part 7 proceedings and summary judgment. The contractor challenged the decision alleging excess of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice. The contractor asserted that there was a binding agreement between the parties to extend the contractual completion dates and that the adjudicator had failed to take account of these revised dates. The court concluded that there was no binding agreement as to revised dates, the parties were agreeing the extension of time under the contractual mechanism and therefore the decision could be enforced. It awarded summary judgment of the Part 7 proceedings and declined to make the declarations sought by the Part 8 proceedings.
Clerkenwell Lifestyle (UK) Ltd v HG Construction Ltd [2026] EWHC 1406 (TCC), 12 June 2026
Key contacts
Knowledge Counsel London
Partner London
