Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 277 17 March 2026

Maritime

The Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court decision of 80:20 liability for a collision between the KIVELI and the AFINA I respectively. The two bulk carriers were approaching each other in what the judge determined was a head-on situation. Under Rule 14 of the Collision Regulations 1972, both vessels should have turned to starboard. AFINA I turned to starboard but not early enough and KIVELI turned to port in a negligent breach of Rule 14, as well as various failings in keeping a good lookout. The Court of Appeal’s decision involved a detailed consideration of the interpretation of the Collision Regulations, in particular whether Rule 14 imposed a particular arc within which the vessels would be regarded as being head on and the required sidelight visibility. The court also confirmed that once Rule 14 is engaged, it remains engaged until the risk of collision has passed. The appeal was dismissed. Finally, the court also flagged up that a change was required to Practice Direction 52C to ensure that the involvement of nautical assessors in collision appeals was not mandatory.

Monford Management Ltd v Afina Navigation Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 251, 11 March 2026

Aviation

The Commercial Court has given judgment in a dispute arising between Bin Otaiba Investment Group (“BOIG”), an aircraft owner and GAF under an aircraft management agreement. GAF provided the services but invoices remained unpaid. Work on the aircraft ceased and it was placed into parking. The court held that the aircraft had been detained in accordance with the terms of the agreement as an exercise by GAF of its contractual lien until payment of all amounts due. The court held that BOIG had not terminated the agreement as the notice of purported termination did not provide the requisite notice period, nor complied with formal contractual requirements. It also gave judgment on the sums to which GAF was entitled, including repair costs, hangarage fees and interest.

Gama Aviation FZC v Bin Otaiba Investment Group [2026] EWHC 258 (Comm), 24 February 2026

Arbitration – mediation

The Commercial Court has concluded that a multi-tier dispute resolution clause that provided that if “the dispute is not resolved within a reasonable period, then any or all outstanding issues may be submitted to mediation in accordance with any statutory rules of mediation” was not a pre-condition for arbitration. The clause was contained in a joint venture agreement and the dispute related to entitlement to payment. There was lengthy correspondence but no mediation before the claimant served a notice of arbitration. The court’s conclusion meant that the dispute could be referred to arbitration and an order was made for the appointment of an arbitrator.

Ropa v Kharis Solutions Ltd [2026] EWHC 259 (Comm), 9 February 2026

Landlord and tenant

A dispute arose between the tenant and landlord in relation to payment in advance of the estimated management charge for the year. The relevant clause required that the lessee was to be notified in writing of the amount to be paid “prior to the commencement of the financial year”. In 2024, notification was not made on time as the landlord had installed new software that did not function correctly. The tenant did not make the payments, asserting that time was of the essence for the notice for advance payment and the absence of advance notice meant that the landlord could only collect the service charge at the end of the year. The Upper Tribunal agreed with the tenant. The clause emphasised the importance of specific timings. As a result, time was of the essence for advance payment and so the tenant was not required to pay in advance.

Jamal v Enfield LBC [2026] UKUT 104 (LC), 5 March 2026