“Court holds claim is time barred since the cause of action arose more than 6 years from any breach of contract and/or 3 year from knowledge necessary for bringing an action in negligence under s. A4A of the Limitation Act 1980.”

“Sinocore obtained an order from the English Court allowing the enforcement of a foreign, New York Convention arbitral award against the defendant UK company. The defendant challenged the order on the grounds that pursuant to the Arbitration Act, public policy rendered the award unenforceable, as forged bills of lading were involved in the transaction underlying it. The Court dismissed the challenge as the defendant's liability had been ascertained under the lawful sale contract, irrespective of any other tainted transaction (i.e. forged bills).”

“The Court held that in defining "port limits", the arrived ship test used in the Johanna Oldendorff (vessel at disposal of the charterer and then geographical position) still serves as the test at common law but that the parties are also free to define this area.”

“After being unable to enforce a London arbitration award against the respondent company, the claimant obtained several Court disclosure orders against the respondent in relation to its assets and ultimately, a Contempt of Court order; due to the deliberate non-compliance by the person controlling the respondent, the Court made an order against him personally, imposing an 18-month prison sentence.”

“Following the sale of a Capesize bulk carrier and the dissolution of the single-purpose selling entity, the claimant buyer purported to commence arbitration against the seller and sought a declaration from the Court that the arbitral tribunal had been validly constituted. Despite acknowledging that the claimant buyer had a "good arguable case" on the substantive claim, the Court declined to recognize that the arbitral tribunal had been validly constituted, since one of the parties was not in existence so as to be capable of being arbitrated against.”

“Shortly before the expiry of the time bar, the Claimants issued but did not serve their Claim Form (which had a validity of 4 months); the Defendants tried to shorten that period by a notice under CPR7.7 calling for service within 14 days. Despite the Claimants narrowly missing the deadline, the Court declined to dismiss the claim as the Claimants had made proper efforts to serve, and the Defendants had suffered no prejudice by the short delay.”