“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.”

“It was held that pleadings containing negotiations between Charterers and Owners could not be protected by privilege since these negotiations were aimed at finding a commercial solution to a commercial problem (the inability of Charterers to make hire payments following a significant plunge in the freight market). Factors such as the presence of lawyers in negotiations, the presence of a third party acting as a mediator, or discussion of a novation did not create a "legal dispute". “

“A London Tribunal has ruled that a claim for legal costs by itself is capable of succeeding under the Inter-Club Agreement (as it held that Clause 4 of the ICA included legal costs in the defence of the original claim), in contrast to an earlier decision on a similar point by another London tribunal.”

“Where the same agents acted for the shipowners, receivers and other parties in the contractual chain, the Court rejected an argument that the cargo was delivered to the agents on behalf of the shipowners, thus coming outside the terms of the Charterers' LOI; finding instead that the agents must have acted for the party to whom delivery had been requested under the LOI. “

“In a claim for an indemnity under the Inter-Club Agreement, it was held that the true construction of clause 8(d) and, in particular, the term "act" in the phrase "act or neglect", did not require fault. Therefore, Charterers' order not to discharge soya bean meal for over 4 months due to non-payment by receivers was considered an "act" within the ambit of clause 8(d), and Charterers were required to bear 100% of the claim.”