London calling Notice provisions should not become a “technical minefield to be navigated” Contracts often include provisions barring claims unless no-tice is given within a specified time limit, thereby…
-
-
CrucibleLegislation and RegulationResourcesThe Crucible: January 2023Legal Insights: London calling…
CA holds that express wording not required to release fraud in a settlement agreement Background MRL referred a case to the Court of Appeal in relation to the…
-
CrucibleLegislation and RegulationResourcesThe Crucible: October 2022London calling: can crypto be security
Can crypto be security? In Tulip Trading v Bitcoin Association for BSV,[1] the High Court considered whether to order security in the form of digital assets such as Bitcoin. Background…
-
CrucibleLegislation and RegulationResourcesThe Crucible: February 2023London calling… Safety trumps instructions
In a recent case, the High Court considered* whether a vessel owner could disregard a charterer’s voyage instruction without interrupting demurrage. The dispute centred around two instances where…
-
CrucibleLegislation and RegulationThe Crucible: February 2023London calling… When “reserving your rights” may not be enough
Two relatively recent cases remind us of the possible limits of “reserving your rights” in certain situations. For Mr Justice Baker, in the 2018 case Phones 4u Ltd (In…
-
CrucibleLegislation and RegulationResourcesThe Crucible: January 2023Trade IssuesLondon calling…. Pay now, argue later
“Pay now, argue later” clause survives legal challenge Upholding the terms of a partial final award of an arbitration tribunal, the English High Court has found* that a…
-
CrucibleLegislation and RegulationResourcesThe Crucible: October 2022London calling…Commercial court enforces pro-arbitration position
Background The case arose out of a JV for the operation of a Russian coalmine with 3 investors, including NDK, which held a 75% share in an SPV registered in…