Thu, 16 June, 2016
Robert-Jan Temmink, instructed by Teacher Stern, successfully acted for Mr Alade, a former client of Alpha Rocks Solicitors, in defence of a claim for professional fees. The defence alleged fraud on the part of the solicitors and counterclaimed for fees paid on account. The Court found that an “invoice and bill of costs were false as regards a majority of the fees charged and Alpha Rocks must have known that, or at the very least been reckless”. The Court found that another “bill was false. Alpha Rocks could not have submitted its invoice and bill without knowing, or being at least reckless as to its falsity… I have no alternative but to find that Alpha Rocks’ instructions to [a costs consultant], the failure to correct the bill of costs created by [the costs consultant] and Alpha Rocks’ continuing reliance on it was all dishonest”.
The claim had an interesting procedural history, having been struck out as an abuse of the Court’s process at an interlocutory stage ( 6 Costs LR 1039), only to be reinstated by the Court of Appeal ( 1 WLR 4534) on the basis that strike out at an early stage of the proceedings had been too draconian a remedy and the findings then made of dishonesty should not have been made without oral evidence.
At trial, after cross-examination of the firm’s witnesses, the Court found “Alpha Rocks appeared to demonstrate a high level of ineptitude.. much of its argument might be described as perverse, naïve or even preposterous.. I must conclude that many of its shortcomings in dealing with and for Mr Alade were not the result of negligence or eccentricity, however gross. In particular, its bills.. were each variously false… this can only have resulted from a dishonest plan to charge for sums which it knew it was not entitled on the basis claimed, or was at least reckless as to the same..”.
The Court dismissed the firm’s claim for fees and ordered Alpha Rocks to pay back all sums paid by Mr Alade on account together with interest. A copy of the judgment can be found via the attached link
Mon, 06 June, 2016
We are delighted to present Quadrant Chambers’ special edition of International Corporate Rescue. We have worked closely together with the team at International Corporate Rescue to ensure that all of the articles contain market relevant topics in cutting edge areas of the law
The articles selected focus on cross-border insolvency issues, with particular emphasis on International Trade. Please do not hesitate to contact our Clerking Team should you have any questions, comments or if you would like further information.
Fri, 20 May, 2016
Simon Rainey QC discusses last week's Supreme Court decision in the latest edition of Tradewinds.
Mon, 16 May, 2016
 UKSC 23. On appeal from  EWCA Civ 1058
Stephen Cogley QC and Liisa Lahti appeared for the Appellants in the Supreme Court who handed down judgment this week in the much-anticipated RES COGITANS dispute arising out of the insolvency of OW Bunker.
The decision is one of the most significant cases on the Sale of Goods Act in many years.
The judgment concerns whether a contract for the supply of bunkers by a subsidiary of the now insolvent OW Bunker was a contract to which the Sale of Goods Act 1979 applies.
The Supreme court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal and the first instance Judge Males J that a contract for the supply of bunkers is not a contract to which the Sale of Goods Act 1979 applies.
According to the Supreme Court the It was a sui generis agreement, with two aspects: The OW subsidiary must (a) permit consumption prior to any payment and without any property ever passing in the bunkers consumed, and (b) if and so far as bunkers remained unconsumed, to transfer the property in the bunkers remaining to the shipowner in return for the shipowners paying the price for all of the bunkers, whether consumed before or remaining at the time of payment.
The practical effect of this is that, in many cases and at least insofar as English law is concerned, OW Bunker subsidiaries are entitled to sue for contract debt and shipowners may be liable to pay twice for the bunkers that they procured.
The Supreme Court further considered whether s. 49(2) of the Sale of Goods Act contained an exhaustive list of circumstances in which a seller could claim the price for goods. Lord Mance stated that a court should be cautious about recognising claims to the price of goods in cases not falling within s. 49. However there was at least some room for claims for the price in circumstances not covered by section 49. Lord Mance declined to set the precise limits for the circumstances in which the price may be recoverable outside s. 49.
Wed, 11 May, 2016
The Supreme Court handed down its decision today in NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NV v Cargill International SA (The Global Santosh)  UKSC 20.
Simon Rainey Q.C., who was brought in to argue the case on the Supreme Court appeal, represented the successful appellants, Cargill. The decision of the Supreme Court is a landmark one in relation to a contracting party’s responsibility for the vicarious or delegated performance by a third party of its contractual obligations, both in the common charterparty and international sale of goods contexts and more generally.
Mon, 09 May, 2016
The Commercial Court has handed down judgment in proceedings relating to a US$1.6 million commodities arbitration relating to supply of blast-furnace grade coking coal. Paul Henton acted for the successful buyers in the arbitration and the Commercial Court proceedings, in which the Court dismissed applications by the Sellers for (i) an extension of time to challenge the Award under s. 80(5) of the Arbitration Act 1996, (ii) a challenge to the Award on grounds of serious irregularity under s. 68 of the 1996 Act, and (iii) an application for leave to appeal the Award under s. 69 of the 1996 Act.
The Judgment is noteworthy in that it confirms the continued applicability to post-1996 Act cases of Hobhouse J’s guidance in the Faith  2 Lloyd's Rep. 408 in cases where the statutory time-limit for appealing or challenging an Award is missed due to delays in collecting/paying for the Award. In obiter remarks, the Judge queried whether the approach ought not to be even stricter post- Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd  1 W.L.R. 795 and Denton v TH White Ltd  1 W.L.R. 3926. The indications are therefore that the Courts will continue to take a strict approach against allowing time extensions where the necessity for an extension is due to the would-be appellant’s failure to pay for the Award in time.
The Judgment was reported on Lawtel on 9 May 2016 and on Lloyd’s Reporter on 25 April 2016. A free copy of the Judgment is available here.
Wed, 20 April, 2016
The Court of Appeal has ruled that a party to a contract containing a London arbitration clause is entitled to an anti-suit injunction on the contractual/The Angelic Grace basis against a 3rd party claiming under that contract in a foreign court pursuant to a foreign right of direct action even though there is no contract between the parties. In so doing, the Court of Appeal in The Yusuf Cepnioglu (2016) preferred its decision in The Jay Bola (1997) to that in The Hari Bhum (No. 1) (2004).
Chirag Karia QC of Quadrant Chambers acted for the successful claimant, The Shipowners’ P&I Club, in the Commercial Court and the Court of Appeal against Turkish charterers suing the Club in the Turkish courts under Turkey’s right of direct action against liability insurers.
A copy of the judgment is available here.
Thu, 14 April, 2016
The Supreme Court has decided that a private fishery for shellfish, established by prescription as existing since before Magna Carta, extends out to the lowest astronomical tide, as it may be from time to time. However, sandbanks which were previously separated from the foreshore and formed part of the public fishery, would not become part of the private fishery as a result of the gradual silting up of channels. The tenant of the fishery was represented at trial, in the Court of Appeal, and in the Supreme Court by Michael Davey QC of Quadrant Chambers, who has extensive expertise and experience in the law and practice of fisheries. A copy of the judgment can be found via the attached link.
Tue, 05 April, 2016
Quadrant Chambers is pleased to announce the publications of both the new 2nd Edition of The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters, by Sarah Derrington and James M. Turner QC, and the new 14th edition of Marsden on Collisions at Sea, for which Simon Gault was a general editor and Thomas Macey-Dare a contributing editor.
Marsden on Collisions at Sea is the undisputed authority in its field. The new edition contains substantial commentary on recent legislation across the board in shipping law from some of the world’s leading shipping law authors and academics. Marsden examines existing and recent case law and regulatory developments, especially the new International Convention on Wrecks, with enhanced coverage of underwater cultural property and treasure, and it will offer greater coverage of international conventions and decisions, as well as the awards system of salvage arbitrators. Details of how to obtain a copy can be found here.
The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters, published by Oxford University Press, is unique in its comparative approach to the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court, with coverage of the law and practice not just in England and Wales, but in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong and South Africa. It has been fully revised and updated with significant developments in both the substantive law and procedural rules, including changes to the 1976 Limitation Convention and to the rules on stay for arbitration, the jurisprudence on arrest procedures and cross-border insolvencies, as well as judicial and academic evaluations of the true nature of a maritime lien. Interactions with the recast Brussels jurisdiction and insolvency regulations are also discussed in this second edition. Details of how to order a copy and how to obtain a complimentary discount can be found via the attached link.
Mon, 04 April, 2016
Nigel Cooper QC has been asked to speak at a number of events in the Far East during April, including the Litigation Conference Workshop in Singapore on 7th & 8th, and The Inter-Pacific Bar Association’s (“IPBA”) 26th Annual Meeting and Conference in Kuala Lumpur, between 13th and 16th.
The Litigation Conference Workshop will be presented by the Law Society of Singapore and held at Marina Bay Sands, Sands Expo and Convention Center. It is designed to allow attendees to develop and improve their litigation skills on a practical level. Queen’s Counsel and Senior Counsel, together with senior members of the Singapore Bar, will be the trainers for this workshop.
The IPBA Conference will held at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre. The theme for this year will be ‘Diverse Challenges, Global Solutions’ and will centre on the international flavour and global nature of business transactions, which has been the catalyst for the increasing prevalence of international norms and laws and the opening up of jurisdictions with respect to trade, business and the practice of law.