< Back to insights hub


Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 917 December 2019

Share this Page


English Commercial Court confirms that London seated arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction to determine dispute in case concerning prepayments under oil supply agreements, exercising the “exceptional remedy” in section 32 Arbitration Act 1996.
VTB Commodities Trading DAC v JSC Antipinsky Refinery

Rejecting arguments that an oral agreement to pay third party’s legal costs was unenforceable under section 4 of the Statute of Frauds 1677, the Court of Appeal finds that the agreement was not a guarantee and so the requirement that it be in writing and signed did not apply.
Abbhi v Slade (t/a Richard Slade and Company)

Freezing injunctions
The Court of Appeal holds that where respondent to freezing order engages in wrongdoing against applicant relevant to issue of dissipation, that will point powerfully in favour of a real risk of dissipation and it may not be necessary to adduce further evidence on that issue.
Lakatamia Shipping Company Limited v Morimoto

In an interesting case on demurrage, the English High Court has considered the meaning of a “usual and reasonable route”, rejecting suggestions that unless a vessel is taking the direct sea track, it is necessary to consider such factors as the nature of the cargo it is carrying.
Alianca Navegacao E Logistica LTDA v Ameropa SA

In the first case to address the question, the High Court confirms that under the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2012 it is necessary to obtain the court’s permission to use a Marine Accident Investigation Branch report in a private and confidential arbitration.
Ocean Prefect Shipping Limited v Dampskibsselskabet Norden AS


Should you wish to discuss any of these cases in further detail, please speak with a member of our London dispute resolution team below, or your regular contact at Watson Farley & Williams:

< Back to insights hub

< Back to insights hub