Publications

Please register below to access the documents

Name:

E-mail (username):

Organisation:

Password:

Already Registered? Login Here:

Username

Password


Quadrant Chambers’ ‘Arbitration Law: 2018 in Review’  published by InformaTue, 30 April, 2019

Informa has published 'Arbitration Law: 2018 in Review' written by Quadrant Chambers and edited by James M Turner QC. An extract can be found here.

Authors include: Michael Howard QC, Simon Rainey QC, Nigel Cooper QC, Nevil Phillips, Ruth Hosking, Paul Toms and David Semark.

This review covers the most important court decisions in England and Wales in the field of arbitration law in 2018, in particular as regards jurisdiction, arbitrators’ powers, challenges under sections 68 and 69, and the enforcement of awards.

We have also sought to provide information on major developments in international arbitration rules, such as the HKIAC (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre) Rules 2018 and the Prague Rules.

The full Review can be found here.


The Renos - a Trojan Horse in the LOF citadel? - James M Turner QCSat, 01 September, 2018

This article was first published in Lloyd's Shipping & Trade Law Journal Volume 18 Issue 7. 

In Connect Shipping Inc and Another v Sveriges Angfastygs Assurans Forening (The Swedish Club) and Others (The Renos) [2018] EWCA Civ 230; [2018] 1 Lloyd's Rep 285, the Court of Appeal rules that SCOPIC expenditure could be included in the ascertaining whether a casualty was a constructive total loss. The author considers that conclusion against the historical background to and purpose of the SCOPIC clause, suggesting that it cannot have been intended by the authors of either SCOPIC or the Marine Insurance Act 1906, and that it may weaken the support of the London market for the Lloyd's Open form Salvage Contract. 


Counterparty Insolvency after Angove v Bailey - Jeremy RichmondTue, 03 April, 2018

This article was first published in Butterworth's Journal of International Banking & Financial Law. To access a copy click here

Key Points

– Until recently contractual payments to counterparties that had decided to cease trading by reason of their insolvency could be treated as being held on constructive trust by the payee for the benefit of the payer. This provided a degree of protection to the payer in any subsequent competition with the wider body of creditors for the paid sum. Angove’s Pty Ltd v Bailey and another has recently removed, or at least significantly reduced, that measure of protection.
– The paying party still has a number of potential steps it may take to protect its position in such circumstances.

Angove’s Pty Ltd v Bailey and another [2016] 1 W.L.R. 3179 held that payments made to a counterparty at a time when it had decided to cease trading as a result of its insolvency are not held on constructive trust for the paying party by that reason alone. The case alters the balance of insolvency risk that the paying counterparty must now consider in its business arrangements. In this article the author considers some of the steps the paying party may take in light of the prospective insolvency of its counterparty.


How far need you go? - Shipowners’ rights and duties when left in possession of the cargo following a withdrawal of the vessel Fri, 25 November, 2016

Matthew Reeve gives a brief and topical analysis of the position of owners, when stuck with someone else’s cargo, having withdrawn the vessel or terminated the charterparty, including recent cases such as, The KOS [2012] UKSC 17, [2012] 2 Lloyds 292, Benedetti v Sarawis [2014] AC 938, The BULK CHILE [2013] 2 Lloyds 38, The LEHMANN TIMBER [2013] 2 Lloyds 541 and The BAO YUE [2016] 1 Lloyds 320. To view the article in full, please follow the attached link to the Lexology website.


Michael McParland’s article is published in Lloyd’s Martime and Commercial Law QuarterlyMon, 21 November, 2016

Michael McParland’s article “Tacit contractual relationships and the special jurisdiction provisions of the Brussels I Regulation: Granarolo v Ambrosi” has been published today in Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly (LMCLQ (2016), pp. 500-517). Michael’s article deals with important developments in the European Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) as to how the concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ are to be interpreted for the purposes of the ‘special jurisdiction’ provisions of the Brussels I Regulation, and will be of interest to anyone involved in cross-border disputes in Europe. The ECJ has introduced for the first time a concept of ‘tacit contractual relationships’:  which, if found to exist in the specific circumstances of the case, means the special provisions of contractual jurisdiction are engaged, even though national law (and the Advocate General in the Granarolo case itself) had characterised the claim as tortious. Granarolo is likely to give rise to a number of disputes and further questions in the future, and will also have an impact in determining how (and indeed where) the dividing line between the applicable law regimes of the Rome I and Rome II Regulations is to be drawn.