“The first Glencore knew of an arbitration claim against it was when it received the Tribunal's Award. The Commercial Court set aside the Award, finding that neither the arbitration notice nor subsequent documentation had been effectively served upon Glencore. All notices and documents had been served by email to a junior employee who had some involvement in operational post-fixture matters, but no involvement in the handling of the dispute and no actual or ostensible authority to accept service of proceedings. Mr Justice Popplewell noted that whilst service by email is capable of being an "effective means" within the meaning of s.76(3) of the Arbitration Act, there is no principle that service by email should be available in most cases; service on a particular individual in a particular case may not be effective.”

“An arbitration clause requiring the tribunal to "consist of persons with not less than ten years' experience of insurance and reinsurance" requires first-hand experience in the trade or business of insurance and reinsurance; legal experience alone will not suffice. A Queen's Counsel with over ten years of experience in insurance and reinsurance law was removed by the Commercial Court on the grounds that he was not qualified to act as an arbitrator in that particular arbitration reference, and the respondents were given 30 days within which to appoint a new arbitrator. “

“In this most unusual case, service of a notice of arbitration on a party's agent was deemed valid, the agent having implied and ostensible authority to accept such service, because the principal took "no part, no role and no interest in the negotiation or performance" of the contract.”

“Owners settled a cargo claim in respect of shortage, wet and other damage to bagged rice and claimed a full indemnity from Time Charterers on the basis that the bills, incorporating a sub-charter, had exposed them to more onerous terms than the t/c. The Tribunal declined to hold that the material terms of the bills had exposed Owners to this cargo claim and instead applied the Interclub Agreement 50% apportionments with each party bearing its own costs of the reference.”

“Dealing with an unexplored corner last week the Commercial Court ruled that the Owners' obligation to proceed with "utmost despatch" or "use all convenient speed" will extend to cases where there is no provision as to ERTL or ETA, but merely a cancelling date. The laycan will still indicate the period of time within which the approach voyage should commence so that the Vessel arrives at the loading port by the cancelling date.”

“A shiprepairer's standard terms (referred to in its quotation for engine overhaul) prevailed over the terms of its tug-owner customer (referred to in the latter's purchase order, issued after its verbal go-ahead). Nevertheless, the shiprepairer's clause excluding liability for consequential loss (and limiting recovery to the value of work) neither precluded nor limited the direct losses claimed as a result of damage sustained during testing, namely engine repair, substitute tonnage and loss of use.”