Case Summaries

Join our Case Summary Mailing List

Want to receive our weekly Case Summary direct to your inbox? Click below!

Archive
Supreme Court Marios Chatzigiannis Supreme Court Marios Chatzigiannis

Sharp Corp Ltd v Viterra BV [2024] UKSC 14

In 2017 Viterra sold peas and lentils to Sharp, on C&FFO Mundra (and Gafta 24) terms; payment cash against documents, with Viterra’s right to re-sell in the event of default. The goods arrived from Vancouver in June 2017 but Sharp failed to pay. By the time Viterra re-gained possession of the warehoused goods (in Feb 2018) to re-sell, the Mundra prices had risen sharply (due to new local import tariffs). The GAFTA board based Viterra’s damages (some USD5m) on the high comparator of the Feb 2018 C&FFO Mundra price. The matter eventually reached the SC which found that GAFTA erred in so doing and the compensatory principle of damages and the doctrine of mitigation both required that the comparator should be the local ex-warehouse price and not the international import price; in other words, Viterra should not have the benefit of the price-hike.

Read More
Supreme Court Panagiotis Galanos Supreme Court Panagiotis Galanos

Herculito Maritime Ltd & Ors v Gunvor International BV & Ors [2024] UKSC 2 (17 January 2024)

Following seizure of the “Polar” by Somali pirates, Owners paid a USD7m ransom, which they sought to recover from Cargo by way of GA contribution. Cargo argued that the C/P War Risk scheme and GoA clause, created an insurance ‘fund’ to be used by Owners in the event of piracy, precluding Owners from seeking reimbursement from Charterers (save as to premia), and that the same scheme was incorporated into the B/L, relieving Cargo from contribution obligations. The SC (upholding Courts below) ruled that the effect of incorporation was that Cargo had no responsibility for premia and were not relieved of the obligation to contribute.

Read More
Supreme Court George Arghyrakis Supreme Court George Arghyrakis

TUI UK Ltd v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48 – 29 November 2023 (Reed LJ, Hodge LJ, Kitchin LJ, Sales LJ, Lloyd-Jones LJ)

The Claimant sued the Defendant tour operator alleging that he fell ill due to contaminated food. He relied on expert evidence which the Defendant did not contest, failing to produce its own expert evidence or to cross examine the Claimant’s expert. The trial judge dismissed the claim on the basis of deficiencies in the expert’s report raised by the Defendant. The High Court overturned this decision; the CA restored it, finding that a court was entitled to rely on its own assessment that a report was unsatisfactory even if uncontroverted; the Supreme Court overturned the CA, ruling that the trial judge’s decision to reject expert evidence which had neither been contested nor subjected to cross-examination rendered the trial unfair. There were limited exceptions, though – e.g. where expert evidence is manifestly incredible or contain an obvious absurdity or mistake on the face of a report.

Read More
Supreme Court George Arghyrakis Supreme Court George Arghyrakis

Philipp v Barclays Bank UK PLC [2023] UKSC 25 – 12 July 2023 (Reed LJ, Hodge LJ, Sales LJ, Hamblen LJ, Leggatt LJ) 

Mrs Philipp claimed against her bank, having fallen victim to an 'authorised push payment' ('APP') fraud, whereby she authorised payments totalling £700k to fraudsters' various international a/cs. The SC, restoring the 1st instance judgment, confirmed the bank's duty to carry out its customer's instructions with reasonable care and skill, disobeying them if reasonable grounds for believing fraudulent agency involved. Where, as here, the instructions came directly from the customer (a feature of APP fraud), the bank might have the right - but had no duty - to disobey such instructions.

Read More
Supreme Court Louise Glover Supreme Court Louise Glover

Jalla & Anor v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co Ltd & Anor [2023] UKSC 16 – 10 May 2023 (Reed LJ, Briggs LJ, Kitchin LJ, Sales LJ, Burrows LJ)

Following a major oil spill off the Nigerian coast in 2011, land owners claimed in private nuisance for damage to their land, alleging that as the oil remained uncleaned, the nuisance was ongoing and the limitation period re-started daily. Confirming the Courts below, the Supreme Court ruled that the spill was a single event, and the tort was complete once the oil impacted the Claimants' land. The Claimants' argument was rejected as it would undermine the law on limitation by extending the time bar indefinitely.

Read More
Supreme Court Louise Glover Supreme Court Louise Glover

Alize 1954 & Anor v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG & Ors [2021] UKSC 51 – 10 November 2021 (Reed LJ, Briggs LJ, Arden LJ, Hamblen LJ, Leggatt LJ)

Owners of CMA CGM Libra, grounded after straying from a buoyed fairway, appealed a ruling that their (causative) failure to update charts to show “numerous depths less than charted” rendered the vessel unseaworthy (Art. III r.1 Hague Rules). Dismissing the appeal, the SC held that seaworthiness was not confined to physical defects, nor were seaworthiness and navigational matters distinct categories. Negligent navigation, here by not updating charts, caused the unseaworthiness, to which Art IV r.2 was no defence, and Owners were under a non-delegable duty to make the vessel seaworthy.

Read More