Knowledge Counsel London
"…some of the cargo will be classified as “goods” and some will not be. This will result in the two parts of the cargo being subjected to two different contractual regimes…"
The Court of Appeal has given judgment on various Hague-Visby Rules issues arising from the carriage of a cargo of pine logs. The cargo was discharged without production of the bills of lading and the holders of the bills alleged misdelivery of the cargo. They arrested a ship in Singapore as security for their claim. Those proceedings were then stayed whilst arbitration proceedings were commenced, as required by the bills of lading. However, the arbitration proceedings were not commenced until over a year after the alleged misdelivery. The court upheld shipowners’ assertion that the claim was time-barred. Bringing suit under the Hague-Visby Rules time bar needed to be proceedings that would decide the substantive claim. Proceedings for security were not sufficient to stop time running. The second issue arose from the fact that the cargo was carried partly on deck and partly under deck. The Hague-Visby Rules do not apply to cargo carried on deck where there is a suitable statement on the face of the bills that the cargo was being so carried. The court held that the statement for a part cargo would need to specifically identify the cargo carried on deck to remove the application of the Hague-Visby Rules. There was no such identification here.
CONSTRUCTION – ADJUDICATION
The Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”) has confirmed its robust approach to enforcing adjudicators’ decisions. The adjudication decision in question held that Avison Young had failed to carry out its duties as NEC project manager with proper care and skill. Avison Young refused to pay the sum awarded and invoked a range of defences including that the adjudicator addressed a different dispute from that referred, inadequate reasons and breaches of natural justice by considering documents that the parties had not had chance to address. The court rejected the defences and gave summary judgment to the employer. It confirmed that the reasons given were sufficient to inform the parties as to what had been decided and why, the adjudicator had addressed the correct question of a professional negligence claim and that there was no breach of natural justice as the parties had the opportunity to make submissions on the relevant report before the adjudicator relied upon it.
CONSTRUCTION – ADJUDICATION
The TCC continued the theme of robust adjudication enforcement in a further judgment from March that was only recently made available. The dispute under a JCT standard building subcontract was decided in favour of the subcontractor and held that the contractor owed it approx. £176,000. The court held that the contractor’s assertion that the adjudicator had decided a true valuation dispute rather than a notified sum dispute was a jurisdiction challenge and should have been made earlier, or the position reserved on jurisdiction. The contractor had waived its right to raise a jurisdictional objection at enforcement stage. The alleged natural justice breaches of unfair application of the burden of proof and using a critical delay path analysis without giving the parties opportunity to make submissions were also rejected.
For a more detailed discussion of the decision see our article here.
MARITIME – JURISDICTION
In a dispute arising from an agreement to supply marine fuels for distribution in local markets in Liberia and Sierra Leone, the Commercial Court dismissed an application for a stay of the English proceedings that had been commenced by the supplier against the guarantor of the purchaser. The guarantor was a BVI company, the supplier, a Dubai company and the guarantee governed by a non-exclusive English jurisdiction clause. The guarantor brought pre-emptive proceedings in Liberia for proper accounting of the amounts owing between the parties. The court concluded that there were no strong reasons to grant a stay. The various objections to English court jurisdiction such as the location of witnesses, documents and assets in Liberia, as well as difficulties enforcing an English judgment in Liberia, were all rejected. All these factors were foreseeable at the time the English court jurisdiction agreement was made.
Conex Oil & Gas Holdings Ltd v PSTV Energy FZCO [2026] EWHC 2325 (Comm), 10 September 2026
Key contacts
Knowledge Counsel London
Partner London
