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.

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.

In the early 200s, the Plaintiffs invested some EUR14.5m in new mussel-dredging vessels with the encouragement and assistance of the Irish State, who wished to promote the sector and controlled access to stocks in its waters. The State then opened access to Northern Ireland dredgers, with the result that by 2005, mussel yield dropped, collapsing altogether in 2006. The Court ruled that, as the State had actively encouraged the investment, it had a duty to protect the Plaintiff investors against loss of their investments (although not of profits).

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.