Artikler på wr.no

15.12.2023

Limitation of liability in light of the MSC Flaminia (No. 2) appeal decision.

The Court of Appeal in London has given further guidance on charterers’ ability to limit liability following the High Court decision in the MSC Flaminia (No. 2) reported in our December 2022 edition, giving some important clarification to the types of limitation claims charterers can make.

13.12.2021

Tiered dispute resolution clauses – problems in drafting

There are various forms of tiered dispute resolution clauses requiring negotiation and/or mediation before arbitration, and difficulties may arise when the procedure is not followed. A recent English case, NWA and Other v NVF and Others [2021] EWHC 2666, has added further insight to the interpretation of these clauses and the need for clarity in their drafting.

09.12.2020

When is the law applying to an arbitration agreement not the same as the law applying to the contract?

In Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38 the UK Supreme Court has (by a 3:2 majority) recently clarified that, in the absence of an express choice of law, the law governing the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement is that of the seat of the arbitration and not the law applicable to the contract.

22.06.2020

When are e-mails to your team and your in-house lawyers disclosable?

In The Civil Aviation Authority v R (Jet2.Com Ltd, [2020] EWCA Civ 35), the Court of Appeal in London has recently given judgment on a dispute about disclosure of some of Civil Aviation Authority’s (“CAA’s”) internal documents and e-mails which CAA claimed were privileged due to the inclusion of their in-house lawyers as addressees. The judgment covered many points, but of particular interest was its finding on how legal advice privilege applies to multi-addressee emails.

09.12.2019

How many attacks does it take to make the Strait of Hormuz unsafe?

Since May 2019, there have been six oil tankers attacked in the Strait of Hormuz, four on 12 May 2019 and two on 13 June 2019, all allegedly with limpet mines or drones/missiles. Despite these attacks, vessels are however still taking orders to sail through the Strait albeit at higher war risk insurance rates and no doubt heightened crew concerns. Whilst the occurrence of such attacks might lead to war risk clauses in the governing charterparties being invoked and the war risk insurers applying their own approach to the situation, at what point, under English law, can owners refuse such voyage orders on the basis that the Strait is contractually unsafe?