Socrates Papadopoulos

Carboex S.A. v. Louis Dreyfus [2011] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 177. Appeal from arbitration award dealing with the important question in the trade of whether the Amwelsh charterparty strike clause applies to excuse delays in loading and discharging (i) after the strike is over, and (ii) where the vessel is delayed in berthing due to congestion that has arisen as a result of a strike that has ended.  Field J's judgment includes a consideration of the House of Lords decision in Central Argentine Railway v. Marwood [1915] AC 981, and addresses how a number of conflicting House of Lords and Court of Appeal authorities are to be resolved.

Tidebrook Maritime Corp v Vitol SA of Geneva, The "Front Commander" Court of Appeal, [2006] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 251 - Laytime and Demurrage - Whether laytime commenced to run prior to agreed laydays under Vitol Terms. The case concerned the question of whether under the widely used Vitol Voyage Charterering Terms, Charterers' consent to early NOR has the effect of causing laytime to start to run before the agreed laydays. The Court of Appeal, reversing the judgment of the Commercial Court, held that Charterers' consent to early NOR was sufficient to start the laytime clock early and there was no requirement that Charterers consent separately to the early commencement of laytime.

Union Maritime Morocco Scandinave S.A. v Spero Marine S.A. Central London County Court Mercantile List, Claim No. PO910005. - Claim for cargo damage - agreement that arbitration must be commenced within two years of final discharge - whether claim barred. The case concerned a charterparty arbitration clause which provided that any dispute must be referred to arbitration within two years of final discharge. Arbitration was not commenced within two years, and the issue was whether on a proper construction of the arbitration clause if arbitration was not commenced within two years the claim was time barred; or whether alternatively if arbitration was not commenced within 2 years then any claim had to be brought in the courts instead.

Schweppe v Harper Court of Appeal, [2008] All ER (D) 311 - Contract - Unilateral Offer - implied terms of co-operation and non-prevention. This was a claim by an agent for remuneration for work done towards annulment of the defendant's bankruptcy, in circumstances where it had been agreed that he would only be paid if he succeeded in his task. The judgment of the Court of Appeal considered a number of important and difficult issues including unilateral offers and when they cease to be capable of withdrawal, certainty of contractual terms, whether there can be a valid agreement to negotiate in good faith, the existence of implied terms of co-operation and non-prevention of performance, and assessment of damages as loss of a chance.

Sunderland Marine Mutual Insurance Co Ltd v Wiseman - The "Seaward Quest" Commercial Court, [2007] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 308. Conflict of laws - Alleged scuttling of vessel - Place where harmful event occurred - Whether forum non conveniens still applies as between different parts of the UK. The Claimant English insurance company sued the crew of a fishing vessel domiciled in Scotland for recovery of insurance monies, alleging that the vessel had been scuttled. The proceedings were brought in England. The issues were whether under Schedule 4 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, England was "the place where the harmful event occurred"; and if it was, whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens continues to apply between England and Scotland, despite the fact that it does not apply between member states.

Harsco Track Technologies v Euro Trans International Inc. Commercial Court, 2003 - Claim for cargo damage - challenge to jurisdiction of English courts - conflicting jurisdiction agreements. This case concerned a shipment in respect of which the carrier issued a seaway bill providing for US jurisdiction, but the freight forwarder issued a separate bill of lading providing for English jurisdiction. The issue was whether the freight forwarder had actual or apparent authority to issue the bill of lading, and which of the two conflicting jurisdiction clauses prevailed.

Rosen v Fenix County Court, 2002 - Claim for estate agent's commission - forum non conveniens. The case concerned a purchase of Australian farmland by an English farmer, which led to a dispute over whether estate agent's commission was due. The purchaser was sued for the commission in the English courts, and the issue was whether the English proceedings should be a stayed on the ground that Australia was a more appropriate forum for determination of the dispute.