CAFI and GCTS replaced their original rice sale contract with a second one after Sanctions and payment issues arose. Despite this, GCTS later claimed damages under the first contract. The GAFTA Board ruled against CAFI, but the High Court found GAFTA could not ignore the second contract, so CAFI’s challenge succeeded and the Award was set aside.

Read the full judgment here.

The invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was considered as a default by the lessors of several aircraft leased to a number of Russian airlines. The lessors demanded the aircraft back, but Russian Governmment Resolution 311 prohibited their return. The lessors therefore claimed for their total loss, either under their “All Risks” or their “War Risks” policies. Butcher J found that the proximate cause of the loss was the Russian government’s restraint or detention imposed by GR 311 and that such loss was covered by the lessors

War Risks insurance.

Read the full judgment here.

Read the full judgment here.

Palmali claimed some USD120m remuneration under a 10+5 year COA said to have been concluded with Litasco, whereby Palmali would exclusively transport for Litasco, from Russian ports, 400,000 - 700,000 mt monthly of Lukoil refinery products. The Court found the arrangement did not amount to an enforceable COA as it was merely an agreement to agree and of no legal effect. In particular, there was no agreement on rates, the parties did not treat the COA as in place (other contracts covering such transactions as took place) and the arrangement was commercially absurd for both.

Read the full judgment here.

The High Court rejected the Defendant Bank’s attempt to strike out the Claimants’ multi-million GBP fraud claim. The Bank argued the claim was time barred under the Limitation Act, but the Claimants relied on Section 32(1)(a) of the Act alleging deliberate concealment of the fraud which could not reasonably have been discovered earlier. The Court agreed there was a real prospect that the Claimant “could not have discovered the fraud without exceptional measures which it could not reasonably have been expected to take,” and therefore allowed the case to proceed to trial.

In a recent High Court case, MSH Ltd challenged anarbitral award under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, claiming theTribunal lacked jurisdiction since HCS Ltd wasn’t a party to the sale contract. The contract named CTW Ltd as the buyer, but it was later revealed CTW acted asagent for HCS, a trading house. The Court found that HCS, though unnamed, was the true undisclosed principal—evidenced by its provision of the letter of credit — and upheld the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, dismissing the appeal.