2,049
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
The arbitration panel rejected the submission made by Flame. The rejection of that submission gave rise to the question of law on appeal.
The judge came to the following conclusions having heard leading counsel for the parties and undertaken a thorough review of the leading case law:
'''Comment'''
As the writer commented in relation to the House of Lords’ decision in The “Golden Victory” (fn.1 ) [http://archive.onlinedmc.co.uk/golden_strait_corp_v__nykk_(house_of_lords).htm] for the Judge to have held otherwise than he did would have flown in the face of reality; it would have created the potential for an innocent party to be improperly over-compensated based on an assumption, contrary to the fundamental principle underlying the payment of damages, namely to award damages that represent the innocent party’s true loss. The present judgment is to be welcomed for upholding the spirit of that principle.
Footnote 1: Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha [2007] UKHL 7
