Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 2587 October 2025

Maritime
The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal and restored an arbitral tribunal decision awarding the buyers of a ship under a Norwegian Saleform 2012 US$1.85m in damages. The seller of the ship (a Capesize bulk carrier, the MV Lila Lisbon) had failed to give notice of readiness by the cancelling date and so the buyer had cancelled the contract and commenced arbitration. The issue was whether the buyer was entitled to damages for loss of bargain where seller’s failure to give notice of readiness was due to seller’s proven negligence. The court held that the seller was under an implied obligation to exercise reasonable diligence to deliver the vessel by the cancelling date. When it did not do so, the buyer’s loss was the loss of the bargain: it had contracted to pay only US$15m for a ship that at cancellation was worth US$16.85m.

Orion Shipping and Trading LLC v Great Asia Maritime Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1210, 2 October 2025

For our detailed article on this case, follow this link.

Property
The Court of Appeal held that where there was no evidence that a declaration of trust in relation to land complied with section 53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925, that trust was not enforceable. The National Iranian Oil Company (“NIOC”) sought to transfer a London property into another party’s name a week after the English court granted permission to Crescent Gas to enforce an arbitration award against NIOC. The declaration had been signed by an agent on behalf of NIOC, rather than by NIOC itself (using the appropriate formalities). As a result NIOC was treated as the beneficial owner of the property and had transferred it at an undervalue to put it beyond the reach of creditors, specifically Crescent Gas, under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

National Iranian Oil Company and another v Crescent Gas Corp Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1211, 30 September 2025

Building Safety Act
In making a remediation order under section 123 of the Building Safety Act 2022, the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has provided guidance on the extent of its jurisdiction over the remediation to be ordered. The relevant building was a block of residential flats and the defects included cladding, inadequate cavity barriers and timber elements. The tribunal resisted the applicants’ suggestion to include details of relevant steps to be taken in relation to the remediation works. It was appropriate for the tribunal to specify which defects required remediation, but it was not empowered to require compliance with a particular specification of works. It was a decision for the landlord as to how it goes about the remediation.

Kieft and others v Hyde Housing Association Limited [2025] UKFTT (PC), 5 September 2025

Breach of contract
In a dispute arising from a shareholders’ agreement (“SHA”), the Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the lower court decision that Mr Kulkarni was not entitled to declarations in relation to service of a deemed transfer notice in respect of the shares. The other shareholder, Gwent, had committed various breaches of the SHA including purporting to terminate the SHA, refusing to recognise a director’s appointment and allotting shares to itself. Those breaches were held to be material as required by the SHA and were repudiatory. The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court, taking a practical rather than technical approach, that the breaches were all capable of being remedied and had been remedied. The relevant contract made no distinction between whether clauses were repudiatory or not, the relevant question was whether they were remediable.

Kulkarni v Gwent Holdings Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1206, 26 September 2025