‘It would be “wrong in principle” for the High Court to rule on the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between two companies ahead of any actual proceedings, as this would deny the arbitral tribunal the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, a judge has found.’
OUT-LAW.com, 8th June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping and Trading Pte Singapore and another [2016] EWHC 1118 (Comm)
‘The charterer engaged a third party company to arrange contracts which would be concluded in the charterer’s name but performed by the third party. Through the third party, the charterer entered into a contract of affreightment with the owner. The principal contact point between the owner and the charterer was a junior employee at the third party company. When a dispute arose the owner appointed an arbitrator and e-mailed their notice of arbitration to the third party’s employee, calling on the charterer to appoint their arbitrator. The charterer having not responded, the owner’s arbitrator, in accordance with the terms of the contract, proceeded as the sole arbitrator and made an award in favour of the owner. The charterer applied, pursuant to section 72(1)(b)(c) of the Arbitration Act 1996, for a declaration that the award had been made without jurisdiction, on the ground that the third party’s employee had not had authority to accept service of notice of commencement of arbitration proceedings on the charterer’s behalf and that service on him had not been in accordance with section 76 of the 1996 Act. The owner contended that the employee had had actual implied authority and/or ostensible authority to receive notice of arbitration on the charterer’s behalf.’
WLR Daily, 20th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
HC Trading Malta Ltd v Tradeland Commodities SL [2016] EWHC 1279 (Comm)
‘The parties were in communication in relation to a proposed transaction whereby the defendant would purchase 250,000mt of clinker from the claimant. However, no actual shipments occurred and some months after the last significant communication between the parties, the claimant asserted that there was a binding contract, containing a London arbitration clause, that the defendant was required to perform. The defendant denied that any such contract had been concluded. The claimant made clear its settled intention to make a contractual claim against the defendant in a London arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause, so that such an arbitration could be viewed as imminent. The defendant, denying the existence of the contract, had no claim of its own against the claimant, and indicated that it would contest jurisdiction once the arbitration proceedings were commenced. The claimant, prior to commencing arbitration proceedings, issued a claim in the High Court by which it sought a declaration that there was a binding arbitration agreement subject to English law and which covered its proposed claims. The defendant applied, inter alia, to have that claim set aside.’
WLR Daily, 2nd June 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re A (A Child) (Baby Relinquished for Adoption: Case Management) [2016] EWFC 25
‘A, a baby born in England to Latvian parents, was relinquished at birth for adoption and quickly placed with foster parents who were approved to adopt. On the understanding that there was no one within the extended natural family, either in England or in Latvia, in a position to care for A, and with the consent of the birth parents given in accordance with sections 19 and 20 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the local authority proceeded to convert A’s short-term arrangements to an adoptive placement and notified the Latvian central authority of A’s situation. The foster parents, with whom A had lived for much of his life, applied to adopt him. The Latvian central authority, having made its own enquiries of relatives in Latvia, identified the maternal grandmother as a potential long-term carer for A, had completed a favourable preliminary suitability assessment and commissioned a full suitability assessment. The central authority opposed the adoption of A in England and submitted its concerns that the approach of the English courts towards adoption cases placed insufficient weight on the rights of a child to grow up in his inherited culture and was therefore potentially contrary to articles 36 and 37 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 and a breach of articles 8 and 20 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. The birth mother, who had deliberately not informed her wider family in Latvia of the proposed adoption, continued to support adoption by the foster parents, maintaining her opinion that an education and upbringing in England would be in A’s best interests and that her mother would find it difficult physically and financially to care for A. At a case management hearing, the children’s guardian appointed for A recommended an adjournment to enable completion of the grandmother’s assessment. In circumstances where the prospective adopters, the birth parents and the local authority all supported the adoption, where factors from the welfare checklist in section 1(4) of the 2002 Act pointed towards adoption, and where a delay in making a decision was likely to prejudice A’s welfare, the issue before the judge was whether he should make an adoption order without having considered the substantial assessment of the suitability of the maternal grandmother in Latvia as A’s long-term carer.’
WLR Daily, 6th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Where the County Court has made a decision on appeal from a district judge or deputy district judge the position as to an appeal from the County Court’s decision is as follows. (i) If the County Court has heard the appeal and ruled on the issues determined by the district judge (including the validity or otherwise of the claims, the relief to be granted and the costs of the hearing before the district judge) then, by virtue of article 5 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2000, any appeal will lie only to the Court of Appeal. Permission must be sought from the Court of Appeal, pursuant to CPR r 52.13, and the second appeal test, set out in section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, will apply. (ii) In respect of the costs of the appeal to the County Court, any appeal will lie to the Court of Appeal, pursuant to article 5 of the 2000 Order, but the second appeal test will not apply. (iii) It would be open to the County Court judge to grant permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of the costs of the appeal to the County Court and the normal test for permission will apply. It would also be open to the Court of Appeal to grant permission applying the same test. (iv) If there has not been what can properly be regarded as a hearing of the appeal, any appeal (which is almost certainly to be one on costs) is to the High Court judge and the normal test will apply (paras 34, 41–42, 44–47, 51, 52, 54, 55).’
WLR Daily, 24th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Is the Supreme Court’s decision in PJS v NGN [2016] UKSC 26, [2016] All ER (D) 135 (May), as Lord Toulson suggests, out of touch with reality? Sara Mansoori, barrister at Matrix Chambers, considers the wider consequences of the case and suggests that even when information is in the public domain, the law of privacy can prevent repetition of that information where such repetition can cause unwarranted distress.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 25th May 2016
Source: www.halsburyslawexhange.co.uk
‘Compensation claims for torture, rape, wrongful detention and forced labour brought by 40,000 Kenyans who allege they were mistreated by British officials during the Mau Mau insurgency are due to be heard in the high court in London on Monday.’
The Guardian, 22nd May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘With the in/out Europe vote to come (or having gone) what will the result mean for Human Rights? How is or has the debate been framed?’
Gresham College, 6th April 2016
Source: www.gresham.ac.uk
‘The cabinet split over Theresa May’s call to withdraw from the European convention on human rights has deepened, after Michael Gove’s Ministry of Justice confirmed it was not government policy.’
The Guardian, 26th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
In re N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) (AIRE Centre and others intervening) [2016] UKSC 15
‘Two children, who like their parents were Hungarian nationals, were born in England and habitually resident in the United Kingdom, having lived with the same English foster carers for most of their lives, initially with the consent of their parents. The local authority sought a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 and, subsequently, an order for placement of the children with the foster carers with a view to their adoption pursuant to section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The mother, who had returned to Hungary and had a third child with the father, opposed the orders and applied under article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 for the proceedings to be transferred to Hungary. The Hungarian authorities supported her application, maintaining that only the Hungarian authorities could order the adoption of a Hungarian national minor. They proposed that upon return to Hungary the children would be placed with English speaking foster parents but maintain contact with their parents. The judge directed that both the care and placement order proceedings be transferred in accordance with article 15 on the ground that the Hungarian courts would be better placed to determine the welfare issues. The Court of Appeal decided, inter alia, that the placement order proceedings were outside the scope of article 15 by virtue of article 1(3)(b) of the Regulation and could not, therefore, be transferred to Hungary, but that, since the judge had not erred in ordering the transfer of the care proceedings, the placement order proceedings would be stayed even though they could not be transferred. ‘
WLR Daily, 13th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A local authority has won a Court of Appeal battle with a mother over her desire to name her twin children ‘Cyanide’ and ‘Preacher’.’
Local Government Lawyer, 15th April 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Anti-arms trade campaigners have put pressure on the Government to act after officials’ business-as-usual response to a court ruling warning that illegal arms could be changing hands at at London arms fair.’
The Independent, 16th April 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Roger McCarthy QC and Mark Twomey, barrister, of Coram Chambers address the central point of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Re N (Children) [2016] UKSC 15.’
Family Law Week, 13th April 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘With both the US and London mayoral elections gaining momentum, and leading commentators poised to offer independent research, enlivened views and sage analysis, you really would be forgiven for not having had your eyes trained on recent enforcement action in the TCC.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 1st April 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed an appeal brought by a Children’s Guardian in a case concerning whether the courts of England or Hungary should have jurisdiction to determine proceedings concerning the future welfare of two young girls.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th April 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Dodge the tumbleweed blowing down the corridors, enter any Employment Tribunal (ET) waiting room and you will almost certainly see at least one employment lawyer sitting, staring at the dregs in their polystyrene cup looking to see whether the tealeaves will reveal if and when ET litigation will rise again, or whether the end of the ET system is nigh.’
Littleton Chambers, 24th March 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024