“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.”

“Among the new changes adopted is the addition of paragraph 11 which addresses the appointment of a sole arbitrator where there has been a failure to comply with an arbitration agreement for arbitration by a sole arbitrator. In particular, if within 14 days of one party calling for arbitration, the parties have not agreed upon a sole arbitrator, then either party may apply in writing for the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the President of the LMAA.

These new terms are in contrast to the procedure currently in place, which is governed by the Arbitration Act 1996. The Act calls for the parties to jointly appoint a sole arbitrator not later than 28 days after service of a request in writing by either party. If there is no agreement, then any party to the arbitration agreement may apply to the court, which would then exercise its powers under the Act to make the appointment.

The new LMAA terms will apply to arbitration proceedings commencing on or after 1 May 2017.”

“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.”

“The Court of Appeal reversed a High Court order which had struck out a claim for abuse of process. The claimant had made a High Court claim against various defendants in respect of a matter already decided against it in an arbitration it brought against another. The High Court held that it was an abuse of process to advance by 'collateral attack' the same allegations already rejected by the arbitrators. The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the high threshold for abuse of process had not been met: the parties to the Court and arbitration proceedings were different; there were no qualifying 'special circumstances'; no manifest unfairness to the defendants or double vexation of a party and nothing to offend against the spirit of the issue estoppel rule.“

“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.”