Knowledge Counsel London
"That view accords with the principle of minimal interference with arbitration awards which underlies the 1996 Act."
Arbitration
The Court of Appeal has been required to hold a further hearing as to the effect of its judgment earlier this year that the claimant’s challenge to an arbitration award was successful in respect of one of the two defendants. After the parties were unable to agree the terms of an order giving effect to the judgment, the court confirmed that the award was set aside in relation to Diag Human SE because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction. However, the award remained in place against Mr Stava.
Czech Republic v Diag Human SE [2025] EWCA Civ 998, 28 July 2025
Maritime – Insurance
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the insurers of the “WIN WIN” were liable to pay for a constructive total loss under the war risks policy when the vessel was detained after anchoring in Indonesian waters without permission. The court rejected an argument that the detention fell within an exclusion from cover for “Arrest, restraint or detainment under customs or quarantine regulations and similar arrests, restraints or detainment not arising from actual or impending hostilities” (clause 1(e), American Institute Hull War Risks and Strikes Clauses). The vessel had not been detained under any customs or quarantine regulation and the detention for anchoring without permission was not of a similar character to a customs or quarantine regulation.
Delos Shipholding SA v Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty SE [2025] EWCA Civ 1019, 30 July 2025
Landlord and Tenant
A notice served on a building landlord to take over management of the block of flats was invalid because the “right to manage” (“RTM”) company had not served notice on all qualifying tenants. The relevant tenant did have a long lease as required by the relevant legislation but it had not been registered at the time the claim notice was given, so would not have been discovered on a search of the Land Registry. As a result, no valid notice had been given to transfer the management of the building to the RTM company.
Avon Freeholds Ltd v Cresta Court E RTM Co Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1016, 30 July 2025
Sanctions
The Supreme Court has upheld decisions of the lower courts and confirmed that sanctions imposed on certain individuals were justified. The court recognised that the sanctions were having a very significant impact on the sanctioned people’s lives, but that was proportionate and justified. The regulations aimed to limit and deter Russian aggression in Ukraine. There is a rational connection between the measures taken and the aim. The measures would have economic effects to reduce income flowing into Russia as well as disincentivising the parties from supporting or associating with the Russian government.
Maritime
The Commercial Court confirmed that the implied indemnity for complying with charterer’s orders did allow a ship owner to recover sums paid as a result of an adverse judgment in the PRC court. The dispute arose from a cargo of soya beans that had been damaged as a result of inherent vice. This latter fact was common ground between the parties in these proceedings, even though the PRC court was not persuaded of this fact. The arbitral tribunal had not made any error in its conclusions that the loss was caused by charterer’s orders, it was not a loss that owners had agreed to bear and so fell within the implied indemnity.
Sino East Transportation Ltd v Grand Amazon Shipping Ltd [2025[ EWHC 1990 (Comm), 30 July 2025
Sanctions – Bonds
In a very detailed judgment, the Commercial Court held that various banks were prevented by sanctions from making payment under certain on demand bonds that had been issued in relation to construction of a fertiliser plant in Russia. The Russian company claiming under the bonds asserted that valid demands had been made and that nothing prevented payment. The court agreed with the banks that indirect ownership by sanctioned individuals was sufficient to freeze the bonds and that payment under the bonds was prohibited. The court also confirmed that the fact that performance of the bonds was illegal in the place of performance (France and Italy) made the bonds unenforceable, as did public policy.
LLC EuroChem North-West-2 v Societe Generale SA [2025] EWHC 1938 (Comm), 31 July 2025
Property
The Upper Tribunal has exercised its discretion to modify restrictive covenants to permit ground floor works to a neighbouring property, on the basis that the benefit from the restrictions was not of substantial advantage to the objecting property owner. However, despite having planning permission, the roof works could not go ahead as the proposed amendments would have a significantly overbearing effect on the objector’s garden. It was therefore appropriate to maintain those restrictions.
Hassan v Heath [2025] UKUT 242 (LC), 5 August 2025
Maritime
The Commercial Court has interpreted the unusual terms of a bareboat charterparty to decide whether it had been validly terminated, whether sums were still owing and who owned the vessel. The charterparty provided that the vessel owner was obliged to transfer title to the vessel to the charterer upon expiry of the term, as long as no sums were owing. The court analysed the various claims and concluded that sums were still outstanding. As a result, the owner was not obliged to transfer ownership.
Ceto Shipping Corporation Inc v Savory Shipping Inc [2025] EWHC 2033 (Comm), 31 July 2025
Key contacts
Knowledge Counsel London
Partner London
