The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal the High Court’s dismissal of an arbitration appeal brought under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The arbitration, conducted under LCIA Rules, involved an agreement between the parties that any appeal to the English courts must be brought “within thirty (30) days after the decision is rendered.” The Claimant had filed the appeal 30 days after receiving the award, but both courts held that time ran from the date the award was made, not communicated, interpreting “rendered” as equivalent to “made” by analogy with the Act, which draws that distinction. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the parties’ agreement on the 30-day period displaced what would otherwise have been a right under the 1996 Act to apply to extend time.

Read the full judgment here.

Shvidler and Dalston Projects each appealed UK sanctions decisions made under the 2019 Russia (Sanctions) Regulations. Shvidler, a UK citizen, with links to Abramovich, challenged his asset freeze. Dalston, an SPV registered owner of the yacht Phi  (beneficially owned by a Russian businessman) challenged her detention in under a Regulation allowing the Secretary of State to direct the movement of a ship owned, controlled, or chartered by a designated person. The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, holding the interferences were proportionate. It confirmed appellate courts must make a fresh proportionality assessment. In the otherwise unanimous Judgment, Lord Leggatt dissented as to Shvidler’s asset freeze, finding it oppressive, “Orwellian” and lacking a rational link to the sanctions’ aims.

Read the full judgment here.

Owners of the “Ida” purportedly chartered her brokers via Nordtrade (D2) to BFT for a St Petersburg-Izmir wood pellet voyage. On arrival, freight was outstanding. Although later settled (via Nordtrade), Owners withheld discharge pending demurrage, prompting BFT to claim the C/P. Owners settled with BFT but claimed against D2 for breach of warranty of authority. D2 was served at its registered principal Turkish office (although they did not, in fact, notice the papers for some 4 months) and, in the absence of acknowledgment of service, had default judgment (in excess of USD1m) entered against them. D2 applied to set this aside. The Court granted the application, holding the delay was not unreasonable and D2 had a real prospect of establishing their co-defendant D1 was the broker and that BFT gave actual authority to them.

“Ben Nevis” and “Kailash” were each bareboat chartered by their respective Owners (C1 and C2) for 6 year terms to D1. After about 2 years, hire ceased to be paid and Cs claimed against D1 and Guarantors D2. The Court dismissed D1’s reliance on a “Repossession Agreement” finding D1 liable for some USD46.4m and USD30m respectively. It also dismissed D2’s reliance on the 6 year term of the Guarantees, holding that it required only that the liability arose in that period, not commencement of suit.

KSY appealed a decision over the pricing term in its 2018 orange pulp supply contract with Citrosuco, whereby the price for part of the quantity was left “open” for annual agreement. KSY argued the contract was unenforceable without a fixed price. The CA disagreed, finding an implied term required payment of a reasonable or market price based on the orange juice trading market.

Claimants challenged a LMAA arbitration award, alleging apparent bias after arbitrator Mr H failed to disclose prior appointments by the Defendant’s solicitors, Reed Smith LLP, in unrelated matters on behalf of other clients. They argued this gave rise to justifiable doubts as to impartiality. The court rejected the challenge, finding no real possibility of bias and confirming that the non-disclosure was consistent with standard LMAA practice.