Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 273 17 February 2026

Adjudication

The Technology and Construction Court has refused to grant summary judgment to enforce an adjudication award because the claimant was not entitled to commence adjudication. The dispute arose out of a contract for the manufacture and installation of stainless steel pits and tanks at a power station. The contractor and subcontractor were both unincorporated joint ventures. The claimant, Darchem, was one part of the joint venture subcontractor and commenced adjudication against the contractor “acting jointly and severally as the Subcontractor in accordance with the Agreement and clause 12.6 of the Subcontract”. The adjudicator rejected challenges to its jurisdiction and decided in Darchem’s favour. The court held that as a matter of construction of the contract, Darchem was not a party to the agreement and could not commence adjudication in its own right, nor unilaterally on behalf of the joint venture. The adjudicator therefore had no jurisdiction.

Darchem Engineering Ltd v Bouygues Travaux Publics [2026] EWHC 220 (TCC), 6 February 2026

Arbitration

The Commercial Court has handed down the latest judgment in a series of decisions arising from the suspension of a construction project in Russia because of sanctions. The contract provided for London ICC arbitration and the claimant commenced such arbitration. However, the contractual counterparty commenced Russian court proceedings. There have been proceedings in other jurisdictions to enforce Russian judgments against the claimants and proceedings before the English courts to uphold the arbitration agreement.  In this latest decision, the English court made an order, under section 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996, enforcing a peremptory order of the tribunal that the defendant confirm that it would not take steps to enforce Russian court judgments and withdraw any actions that have already been commenced. It refused, however, to make a further order under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 as it would cut across the language and structure of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Tecnimont SpA and another v LLC Eurochem North-West-2 (Russia) [2026] EWHC 255 (Comm), 9 February 2026

Commodities

The Court of Appeal has been asked to consider the terms of a settlement agreement entered into between the seller and buyer of crude oil after the buyer delayed significantly in making the payments due. The dispute related to cargoes shipped between 2013 and 2016. Issues included whether a joint report was a binding settlement agreement and limitation. At first instance, the court rejected the seller’s claims for interest, penalty charges and foreign exchange losses (the principal amounts had been paid after proceedings were issued). The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and concluded that the binding agreement had included interest claims and foreign exchange losses. They were included in a table headed “Undisputed Claims” and there was no indication of any unresolved issue in relation to the claims. Further, certain drafting amendments indicated that the parties’ position changed on these points and agreement had been reached.

Sahara Energy Resource Ltd v Societe Nationale de Raffinage SA [2026] EWCA Civ 54, 6 February 2026

Landlord and tenant

The Court of Appeal has considered the meaning of “rent” in the Housing Act 1988 where the tenants provided services rather than paying rent. The answer impacted on whether the relevant tenancy was an assured tenancy and therefore whether the landlords could serve a notice to quit and obtain an order for possession. The court held that the meaning of ‘rent’ under the Housing Act 1988 was intended to be the same as under the Rent Acts. That meaning was that the provision of services would not qualify as rent unless the parties have agreed a value for those services or a method for calculating such value. The parties had not done that here and so the landlords were entitled to a possession order.

Garraway v Phillips [2026] EWCA Civ 55, 9 February 2026