We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 164

Enforcement action stayed in light of Korean insolvency

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 31 2009

The case of DS Norden AS v Samsun Logix Corp & Ors 2009 EWHC 2304 (Ch) concerned international co-operation in insolvency proceedings under the UNCITRAL model law on cross-border insolvency

Commercial Court considers a disponent owner’s challenge of the striking out of its demurrage claim on the grounds that there was no contract between it and the voyage charterer, and as such no arbitration agreement between them

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 10 2011

The Claimant Disponent Owner, who had time chartered the vessel in question, instructed shipbrokers to sub-charter the vessel to the Defendant

No strong reasons for not enforcing exclusive jurisdiction clause

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 31 2009

In Bank of New York Mellon v GV Films 2009 EWHC 2338 (Comm) Field J considered the nature of a jurisdiction clause that was silent as to whether it was exclusive or non-exclusive

High Court rules that a side letter was not enforceable as a legally binding contract, rather it was an agreement to agree

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 17 2011

The Claimant had been a shareholder of a cable television and internet company (the “Company”), which was acquired by the First Defendant

Section 69 Arbitration Act 1996 does not permit the court to entertain an appeal on a question of fact on the basis that the parties have agreed to such an appeal

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 3 2010

In Guangzhou Dockyards Co Ltd (Formerly Guangzhou CSSC-Oceanline-GSW Marine Engineering Co Ltd) v ENE Aegiali I 2010 EWHC 2826 (Comm), the Applicant shipowner applied to strike out part of an appeal by the Respondent dockyard on the basis that it was an appeal on questions of fact

Service - meaning of "usual or last known residence"

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 31 2009

The decision in Relfo Limited (in liquidation) v Varsani 2009 EWHC 2297 (Ch) related to an application to set aside service of a claim form in England

Constructive total loss

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 31 2009

In Dornoch Ltd and others v Westminster International BV and others 2009 EWHC 889 (Admlty) the court was asked to consider a number of issues arising out of a contract of marine insurance in the context of a constructive total loss following a collision

Commercial Court rules on the burden of proof under a contract of insurance incorporating an exclusion for ‘mysterious disappearance’

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 6 2011

In AXL Resources Ltd v Antares Underwriting Services Ltd 2010 EWHC 3244 (Comm), the Claimant metal trading company brought a claim against the Defendant underwriters, who carried on business at Lloyd's of London

Court of Appeal considers whether it has the power to extend time and grant relief from sanctions in relation to a consent order

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 17 2011

The parties had reached an agreement that the Respondent’s reply and defence to counterclaim submissions would be served by a particular time and date

Non-party disclosure

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • March 31 2009

In Gary Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd: Boris Berezovsky v (1) Commissioner Of Police of The Metropolis (2) Independent Police Complaints Commission Lawtel 12.3.09 an application for a non-party disclosure order was refused where the applicant had failed to comply with the very strict criteria in CPR r.31.17, particularly the need to show that the disclosure was necessary