News & Knowledge
The court of appeal has handed down an important judgement confirming that litigation privilege does not extend to internal commercial settlement discussions.
Pin it to the Mast Part 2 – THE APPEAL –NatWest Markets plc v Stallion Eight Shipping Co. SA  (The “ALKYON”)
For those only interested in the outcome and practical implications we have set out the key conclusions of the case in an executive summary. But in an attempt to do justice to the judgement this is followed by an outline of some of the key points considered in the judgement.
Volcafe Ltd and others (Appellants) v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores SA (Respondent) – Pass the bomb for litigators
The long awaited judgement from the Supreme Court in the Volcafe proceedings has been released.
A short article probably can’t do justice to a judgement crafted by five legal minds holding the highest office in the Kingdom in a case presented by four barristers and two prominent shipping firms. So in addition to the below we also put together an infographic!
Every shipping lawyer loves an arrest. It’s bold, usually fast-paced and what’s more, it actually involves a boat! Arresting a vessel is about as racy as shipping law gets.
This was an appeal from a judgement of Teare J in the Admiralty Court relating to a collision between the “EVER SMART” and the “ALEXANDRA 1”. The “EVER SMART” was heading outbound from Jebel Ali Port along a narrow dredged channel. Towards the end of the Channel, where the channel opens out into a pilot boarding area, she collided with the “ALEXANDRA 1”, which had approached the “EVER SMART” from a broadly (emphasis added) North West direction and was awaiting a pilot with a view to entering the narrow channel.
Under the Civil Procedure Rules it has been established for some time that where a claim is governed by the fixed costs regime of the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims and a Part 36 offer is accepted within 21 days neither party can recover anything other than the fixed costs provided for by that regime.
As promised, this is the second legal update on the Maersk Tangier case, considering the package limitation issues raised in the case. Briefly, the question was whether details on the face of a waybill recording the number of tuna loins as the number of “PCS” shipped, could constitute the number of “packages or units” for limitation purposes.
Carrier issues waybill but Court of Appeal says the contract of carriage was “covered by a bill of lading”. Go figure… (Maersk Tangier – Part 1)
It is a testament to the ingenuity (and, cynics might say, powers of self preservation) of English law and lawyers that in certain circumstances the effect of the law can actually be entirely contrary to what it would on first glance, appear. By way of illustration, this article considers one of the issues considered in the Maersk Tangier case (AP Moller-Maersk A/S trading as Maersk Line v Kyokuyo Limited  EWCA Civ 778).
The London Circuit Commercial Court has introduced a voluntary pilot scheme for capped costs litigation.
In the recent judgement Barton v Wright Hassall LLP  UKSC 12 the Supreme Court has considered the power under CPR 6.15(2) to order that steps already taken to bring the claim form to the attention of the defendant by an alternative method or at an alternative place is good service.