This websites use cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For more details about cookies and how to manage them, see our cookie policy.

Cases International & Offshore

Ming Siu Hung v JF Ming Inc. (2021)

Judgment Date: 14 Jan 2021

Following his ruling that his failure to provide the minority with the Company’s financial statements as required by the Company’s articles constituted unfair prejudice, Leon J had ordered that the majority shareholder buy the shares of the minority. The Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal upheld his finding of unfair prejudice but overturned the buy-out order on the ground that requiring the majority shareholder to provide the financial information was the appropriate remedy. The Privy Council restored the buy-out order. Leon J had not made any error of principle and the Court of Appeal had not been entitled to interfere with the exercise of his discretion when considering what relief to grant.

View case

VTB Bank (Public Joint-Stock Company) & Ors v Campino & Ors

Judgment Date: 19 Oct 2020

The Isle of Man’s Staff of Government Division has allowed an appeal and made a disclosure order against a non-cause of action defendant to a freezing order and interveners who were contending that a freezing order should be discharged. In doing so, the Court affirmed the flexibility of the jurisdiction to make ancillary orders to support freezing relief. This is an important case for showing that common law courts are able and willing to order disclosure of documents prior to a discharge hearing of freezing injunctions in appropriate cases.

View case

Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd & Cho Kwai Chee (2020)

Judgment Date: 01 Apr 2020

The Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal against the discharge of a Black Swan freezing injunction for want of jurisdiction over the second respondent, Dr Cho. In doing so, the Court of Appeal affirmed the applicability of the Privy Council’s judgment in Mercedes-Benz AG v Leiduck [1996] 1 AC 284 in the Territory of the Virgin Islands: in short, it is not possible for proceedings seeking only freezing order relief against a foreign respondent to be served on that respondent out of the jurisdiction.

View case

Exportadora De Sal S.A. De C.V. v Corretaje Maritimo Sud-Americano Inc (2018)

Judgment Date: 09 Feb 2018

In relation to a shipbuilding contract entered into by a Mexican buyer and governed by English law, a decree made in Mexico that the tender process leading to the contract was a nullity did not deprive an arbitrator who had determined a dispute in the seller's favour of substantive jurisdiction

View case

Yukos Capital SARL v OJSC Oil Co Rosneft (2014)

Judgment Date: 03 Jul 2014

The court determined as preliminary issues that there was no principle of ex nihilo nil fit in English law preventing the court giving effect to arbitration awards granted by the International Commercial Arbitration Court in Russia despite their having been set aside by the Moscow Arbitrazh Court, that interest on the award could not, as a matter of Russian law, be recovered under the Russian Civil Code s.395, and that interest on the sums claimed could be recovered under the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.35A.

View case

Practice areas
International & Offshore

Brenda Myrtle Sumner & Ors v Costa Ltd & Ors (2014)

Judgment Date: 29 Jan 2014

In determining a rent review, an arbitrator was not required to set out every reason he had as to the weight to be given to each comparable property.

View case

Centreland Management LLP v HSBC Bank Pension Trust (UK) Ltd (2013)

Judgment Date: 04 Jul 2013

In awarding costs under the Arbitration Act 1996 s.61, an arbitrator was not under obliged to compare a Calderbank offer with a valuation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s.34 as of the date of the offer, but rather retained a broad discretion to award costs under s.61 which was totally fact dependent.

View case

Westwood Shipping Lines Inc & Others v Universal Schifff Ahrtsgesellschaft MBH (2012)

Judgment Date: 25 May 2012

An order of a German court appointing a preliminary liquidator was a judgment opening insolvency proceedings for the purposes of recognition by the English courts under Regulation 1346/2000.

View case

Practice areas
International & Offshore

Deutsche Bank AG v Tongkah Harbour Public Co Ltd (2011)

Judgment Date: 24 Aug 2011

An action against a company was stayed under the Arbitration Act 1996 s.9 where the same matter had been referred to arbitration, but an action against the company's parent on a guarantee was not stayed since there was no arbitration agreement and the claimant bank was entitled to enforce the guarantee, if it could make good its claim, regardless of the claim against the principal debtor.

View case

Yukos Capital SARL v OJSC Rosneft Oil (2011)

Judgment Date: 14 Jun 2011

A decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal gave rise to an issue estoppel preventing the defendant from denying that decisions of the Russian courts annulling arbitration awards were the result of a partial and dependent judicial process.

View case

John Milsom, David Standish, Jeremy Outen v Mukhtar Ablyazov (2011)

Judgment Date: 08 Apr 2011

It was appropriate to discharge a temporary undertaking limiting the use by receivers of documents disclosed to them in connection with arbitration proceedings. Arbitration confidentiality or privacy was not absolute and the receivership's purpose in getting in and preserving complex commercial assets would be hampered by the requirement either to give notice or to apply to the court on every occasion where the need for use of the disclosed documents arose.

View case

Practice areas
International & Offshore

Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation v IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd (2008)

Judgment Date: 21 Oct 2008

The terms of the New York Convention 1958 and the Arbitration Act 1996 did not prevent part enforcement of an award in an appropriate case provided the part to be enforced could be ascertained from the face of the award and judgment could be given in the same terms as those in the award.

View case

PCO (Nigeria) LTD v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (2008)

Judgment Date: 17 Apr 2008

A paradigm situation in which the court, exercising its jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act 1996 s.103(5), had to reconsider its earlier decision to adjourn the decision on enforcement of an arbitration award was where there had been a significant relevant development in the proceedings before the supervisory court.

View case

Practice areas
International & Offshore

Celtic Resources Holdings v Arduina Holding BV (2006)

Judgment Date: 11 Sep 2006

The applicant company, which had applied to continue a freezing order granted against the respondent, had failed to satisfy the relatively high burden of establishing a real risk that the respondent would dissipate its assets.

View case

AMB Generali Holding AG & Ors v SEB Trygg Liv Holding Aktiebolag (2005)

Judgment Date: 10 Nov 2005

The warranty that a solicitor gave was that he had a client who had instructed him to assert or deny the claims made in the proceedings against the opposing party. He did not warrant that the client had the name by which he appeared in the proceedings. As a matter of principle it would not be right to impose strict liability on a solicitor for incorrectly naming his client.

View case

Practice areas
International & Offshore

Watergate Properties (Ellesmere) Limited v Securicor Cash Service Limited (2005)

Judgment Date: 08 Nov 2005

An arbitrator's decision, that on the true construction of a lease supplementary rent was required to be deducted from his determination of the yearly rental value, was obviously wrong.

View case

DEMCO Investments & Commercial SA & ors v SE Banken Forsakring Holding Aktiebolag (2005)

Judgment Date: 30 Jun 2005

There could be no appeal under the Arbitration Act 1996 s.69 against the findings of fact in an award, since under s.69(3)(c) of the Act the facts had to be accepted for the purpose of any application for permission to appeal; it was not open to the court to find that, because there was no evidence justifying the findings of fact, there had been an error of law under s.69.

View case

Practice areas
International & Offshore

St George’s Investment Co v Gemini Consulting Ltd (2004)

Judgment Date: 08 Oct 2004

An arbitration award in respect of a rent review was remitted for reconsideration where a serious irregularity had occurred because the arbitrator in applying a discount for onerous lease terms had departed from the agreed basis upon which the case was put to him.

View case

JSC Zestafoni G Nikoladze Ferralloy Plant v Ronly Holdings Ltd (2004)

Judgment Date: 16 Feb 2004

Two out of four parties to a contract could make a binding ad hoc agreement to refer a dispute between those two parties to a sole arbitrator despite the provisions of an arbitration clause in the contract.

View case

China National Petroleum Corporation & Ors v Fenwick Elliott & Ors (2002)

Judgment Date: 31 Jan 2002

There was no clear evidence that the defendants had ever had in their possession any documents that were confidential to the claimants, nor was there any evidence that they or any of their witnesses knew of, or had participated in, any wrongdoing in relation to the circumstances in which any such documents had been obtained.

View case

1 2

Results 1 - 20 of 23