Other Cases

DMC/SandT/10/26

England

Soufflet Negoce SA v Bunge SA

English Court of Appeal: Longmore, Wilson and Toulson LJJ: [2010] EWCA 1102: 13 October 20101

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1102.html

FOB CONTRACT: GAFTA 49 FORM: “IN READINESS TO LOAD”: WHETHER THIS MEANS THAT VESSEL MUST BE “READY” TO LOAD IN A LAYTIME SENSE: RISK OF GOODS DAMAGED BY UNCLEAN HOLDS ON BUYER

DMC/SandT/2010/25

England

Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Isthisal Endustri AS v Sometal SAL

English Commercial Court: Christopher Clarke J: [2010] EWHC 29 (Comm): 18 January 2010 [[1]]

Available on BAILII @ http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2010/29.html

ARBITRATION: INCORPORATION OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT/CLAUSE INTO CONTRACT: GENERAL REFERENCE TO PRIOR CONTRACTS BETWEEN SAME PARTIES WHICH INCLUDED ARBITRATION AGREEMENT/CLAUSE: WHETHER WORDS USED SUFFICIENT TO INCORPORATE PRIOR ARBITRATION AGREEMENT/CLAUSE

DMC/SandT/10/17

South Africa

The MV “Ioannis NK”[[2]]

The owner of the cargo lately laden on board the MV “Ioannis NK” v The Master and Crew & Others (AC 66/2009)

High Court of South Africa (Western Cape High Court, Cape Town) exercising its admiralty jurisdiction: Cleaver J.; 26 August 2009

EXAMINATION OF CREW FOR PURPOSE OF OBTAINING EVIDENCE WHERE DISPUTE SUBJECT TO FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS: EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE ADMIRALTY JURISIDICTION REGULATIONS ACT 1983: FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED: RIGHTS OF CREW MEMBERS FOLLOWING A CASUALTY

DMC/SandT/10/16

England and Wales

Kolmar Group AG v Traxpo Enterprises Pvt Limited [[3]]

English High Court: [2010] EWHC 113 (Comm)

INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS: FOB CONTRACT: ECONOMIC DURESS BY DEMANDING PAYMENT FOR LESSER AMOUNT OF GOODS AT HIGHER PRICE THAN AGREED UNDER THE CONTRACT: TORT OF INTIMIDATION: DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

DMC/SandT/10/11

High Court of England and Wales

Sotrade Denizcilik Sanayi Ve Ticaret AS v Amadou LO and others (The “Duden”)[[4]]

Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court): Jonathan Hirst, Q.C.: [2008] EWHC 2762 (Comm); [2009] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 145: 19 November 2008

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: CHARTERPARTY: LONDON ARBITRATION CLAUSE INCORPORATED IN BILLS OF LADING: CONSERVATORY ARREST BY CARGO OWNER AND INSURER: JURISDICTION: ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION: WRONGFUL INDUCEMENT OR PROCUREMENT OF BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED TERMS OF BILL OF LADING CONTRACT: REFUSAL TO ACCEPT PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY CLUB UNDERTAKING

DMC/SandT/10/09

English High Court

Kallang Shipping SA Panama v AXA Assurances Senegal and Comptoir Commercial Mandiaye Ndiaya (The “Kallang”)[[5]]

Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court): Jonathan Hirst, Q.C.: [2008] EWHC 2761 (Comm); [2009] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 124: 19 November 2008

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: CHARTERPARTY: LONDON ARBITRATION CLAUSE INCORPORATED IN BILLS OF LADING: IMPLIED TERMS: ARREST BY CARGO OWNER AND INSURER: SECURITY: JURISDICTION: WRONGFUL INDUCEMENT OR PROCUREMENT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT: PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY CLUB: LETTERS OF UNDERTAKING

DMC/SandT/10/08

Singapore

TAT SENG MACHINE MOVERS PTE LTD V. ORIX LEASING SINGAPORE LTD:[2009] SGCA 42 [[6]]

Singapore Court of Appeal: Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, Chao Hick Tin JA, V K Rajah JA: 11 September 2009

BAILMENT – BAILOR’S RIGHT TO IMMEDIATE RIGHT TO POSSESSION IF BAILEE’S BEHAVIOUR REPUGNANT TO TERMS OF BAILMENT – WHETHER CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS RESTRICTED BAILOR’S RIGHTS UNDER COMMON LAW

TORT – CONVERSION – WHETHER ACT OF REMOVING MACHINE FROM PREMISES AND DELIVERING IT AS INSTRUCTED AMOUNTED TO CONVERSION OF MACHINE – WHETHER ACT OF STORING MACHINE AT WAREHOUSE AMOUNTED TO CONVERSION OF MACHINE – WHETHER ACT OF REDELIVERING MACHINE TO PURPORTED OWNER AMOUNTED TO CONVERSION OF MACHINE

DMC/SandT/10/7

Hong Kong

The “Blue Bridge” (formerly known as The “Great Power”) [[7]]

Hong Kong SAR Court of First Instance: Reyes J in Chambers: HCAJ No. 136/1999: 1 February 2010 http://www.hklii.org/hk/jud/eng/hkcfi/2010/HCAJ000136_1999-69593.html

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ENTERED INTO AGAINST A SHIPOWNING COMPANY THAT HAD BEEN DISSOLVED: APPLICATION BY RE-INSURER TO INTERVENE: AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR PRINCIPAL IN LITIGATION: DELAY IN APPLICATION TO INTERVENE: REAL PROSPECT OF SUCCESS