Case Summaries
Agouman v Leigh Day (a firm) [2016]
“After securing a £30 million settlement from a global energy company in relation to a chemical waste spill, a law firm was held to have breached its duty of care towards a claimant by exposingthe settlement fund in a foreign bank to a dishonest third party organisation claimingto act on behalf of the victims.”
Globe Motors, Inc & Ors v TRWLucas Varity Electric Steering Ltd & Anor [2016]
“A provision requiring that any amendment to an agreement be in writing was held to be unenforceable; such a clause can in fact be varied by oral agreement or by conduct.”
FSL-9 PTE Ltd & An or v Norwegian Hull Club [2016]
“In an LOU dispute between Owners and Charterers' P&I Club, the LOU's use of the words "liberty to apply" did not mean undersecured Owners could apply to the Court for an increase in the amount of the LOU. Any right to enforce an increase in the amount of security lay against Charterers and not against the P&I Club directly, and in the event security was inadequate, Owners were not prevented from arresting Charterers' assets.”
(1) Suez Fortune Investments Ltd (2) Piraeus Bank AE v Talbot Underwriting Ltd [2016]
“Court refuses to revisit "unless" order striking out owners' claim of a vessel CTL against underwriters, due to owners' failure to disclose full electronic archives.”
Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping and Trading Pte Singapore & Anor [2016]
“Owners served notice of arbitration to the email of a person related to, but distinct from Charterers. That was not valid service on charterers, even if in practice the person was handling the entirety of the contract on behalf of charterers. Also, although Charterers later became aware of the award but failed to react, neither their silence nor their inaction could be considered ratification.”
Shagang Shipping Co Ltd v HNA Group Co Ltd [2016]
“Following repudiatory breach of charter by a charterer, its guarantor was unable to convince the Court that the charter was procured by bribery so as to render the guarantee unenforceable by the disponent owner beneficiary. The Court found that evidence was insufficient and confessions of bribery unreliable, as they may have been obtained by torture.”