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.

Winch Design secured a judgment against Mr Le Souef for £733,750 for unpaid invoices, with the court ruling that he - not Somnio Superyachts - was the true contracting party. The contract’s payment terms were upheld, rejecting claims that invoices were contingent on performance, while Mr Le Souef’s argument that Winch had agreed to delay payment was dismissed outright. With no evidence of rectification, estoppel, or a collateral contract, the court found against Mr Le Souef on all counts, awarding Winch the full sum.

Russian courts imposed astronomical financial penalties on Google, amounting to sums as high as £102 nonillion - figures described as “extravagant, indeed other-worldly, sums of money.” The penalties, bearing no relation to compensatory damages, were imposed as repeated penalty payments, doubling periodically with no cap. Seeking to prevent enforcement outside Russia, Google argued that the sums were punitive, unprecedented, and imposed in breach of contractual jurisdiction clauses.