You, Chris Kidd
& Ince, in any case

15-12-2022 / Maritime

On 17 November 2022, BIMCO published a CII Operations Clause for Time Charterparties that is aimed at assisting owners and charterers in complying with carbon intensity regulations recently introduced by the IMO and that come into force on 1 January 2023. In their article, Chris Kidd and Akshay Misra summarise the CII rating system and discuss the BIMCO Clause.

02-11-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

Optimares S.p.A. vs. Qatar Airways Group Q.C.S.C 2022 WL 06175341 (2022) A termination ‘for convenience’ clause generally allows the cancellation of a contract without fault in circumstances where performance is no longer required or the terminating party finds, at its will, that the agreement should be abandoned.

06-07-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

McGaughey & Anor v Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1233 (Ch) On 24 May 2022, the High Court refused a claim brought against the directors of the Universities Superannuation Scheme (the “USS”), the largest private pension scheme in the UK, for inaction around climate change commitments.

14-06-2022 / Maritime

BIMCO has recently published CONVERSIONCON, a new standard form contract for conversion projects. The authors of this article were honoured to be part of the drafting team tasked with developing and producing the first industry standard form contract for conversion projects.

12-05-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

Refund guarantees are often described as the cornerstones to shipbuilding projects and the buyer’s main security. Although they do not strictly form part of the shipbuilding contract, a shipbuilding project is unlikely to go ahead at all without one. It is therefore important to understand the different types of guarantee instruments, and the impact each has in practice on the guarantor’s obligations to pay and the buyer’s entitlement to recovery. A well-drafted guarantee provides certainty to the parties and strikes a balance between their respective entitlements and obligations.

04-04-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

Estoppel is a useful tool in litigation, which is usually used to bind one party to a statement or a promise that it has previously expressed causing another to accept or adopt it for the purpose of their legal relations. The Court’s recent ruling in Geoquip Marine Operations AG v (1) Tower Resources Cameroon SA (2) Tower Resources PLC addresses estoppel by convention and recognises the requirement for the common assumption created between the parties to be clear and unequivocal. In this article, we focus on the specifics of the Court decision.

08-03-2022 / Maritime

As developments in Ukraine unfold, the international response to the situation is evolving on a daily basis.

28-02-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

With companies racing to make sense of and take steps towards a net-zero future, an array of climate goals are being published at ever increasing speed; it remains to be seen how achievable many of these goals are without concrete plans in place. Accusations of ‘climate-washing’ are rife and statements have been legally challenged. Current investigations and actions show the direction of travel as pressure groups and public organisations seek to hold private sector companies to account.

09-02-2022 / Maritime

Salt Ship Design AS v. Prysmian Powerlink SRL [2021] EWHC 3583 (Comm)

25-01-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

A claim has been brought against the directors of the Universities Superannuation Scheme (the “USS”), the largest private pension scheme in the UK, for inaction around climate change commitments.

01-11-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure

Zavarco plc v Tan Sri Syed Mohd Yusof Bin Tun Syed Nasir [2021] EWCA Civ 1217

18-10-2021 / Maritime

Salt Ship Design AS v. Prysmian Powerlink SRL [2021] EWHC 2633 (Comm)

21-09-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure

In Times Travel (UK) Ltd v Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (Rev 2) [2019] EWCA Civ 828, the Supreme Court confirmed the existence of the doctrine of ‘lawful act duress’ under English law and its limited scope in commercial transactions.

09-08-2021 / Maritime

Shanghai Shipyard Co. Ltd. v. Reignwood International Investment (Group) Company Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1147

15-07-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure

Climate change litigation is a growing trend, as the legal industry bears witness to a constant rise in claims brought against both governments and private corporations for either failing to prevent, or contributing to, harmful carbon emissions across the world.

30-06-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure

LOGIC has recently published Edition 3 of the LOGIC General Terms & Conditions (Including Guidance Notes) of Contract for Marine Construction (referred to herein as the “Contract”).

24-05-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure

Apache UK Investment Limited v. Esso Exploration and Production UK Limited [2021] EWHC 1283 (Comm)

09-02-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure

British Gas Trading Limited v Shell UK Limited, Esso Exploration & Production UK Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 2349

07-05-2020 / Maritime

Jiangsu Guoxin Corporation Ltd (formerly known as Sainty Marine Corporation Ltd) v. Precious Shipping Public Co. Ltd [2020] EWHC 1030 (Comm) This recent judgment reinforces some important points concerning the prevention principle, notice requirements for time extensions, and the effect of design modifications and non-payment of instalments under an amended SAJ form. The Court found, on an appeal from an arbitration award, that neither the prevention principle applied nor would the yard be entitled to extensions of time for buyer-induced delays where it had failed to serve appropriate notices or exercise other relevant contractual provisions.

08-04-2020 / Maritime

Shanghai Shipyard Co Ltd v. Reignwood International Investment (Group) Company Limited [2020] EWHC 803 (Comm) The Commercial Court has recently given an important decision that highlights how the different types of guarantee provided under shipbuilding contracts can have important consequences as to how quickly a demand has to be paid.

25-03-2020 / Energy & Infrastructure

It is a well-established principle of English law that a contract resulting from a threat of an unlawful act or omission may be avoided at the option of the aggrieved party. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Times Travel (UK) Ltd v Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (Rev 2) [2019] EWCA Civ 828 provides a long-awaited clarification on whether a contract may be avoided if it is entered into following pressure involving a threat to do something lawful i.e. “lawful act duress”.

30-10-2019 / Maritime

The English High Court has recently made it clear that injunctions can be obtained to enforce agreements not to trade vessels sold only for demolition when a buyer ignores the agreement and trades the vessels after the sale. Recovering damages is however more difficult.

30-10-2019 / Maritime

The English High Court has recently made it clear that injunctions can be obtained to enforce agreements not to trade vessels sold only for demolition when a buyer ignores the agreement and trades the vessels after the sale. Recovering damages is however more difficult.

08-10-2019 / Energy & Infrastructure

In Nobiskrug GmbH v Valla Yachts Limited [2019] EWHC 1219 (Comm), the Commercial Court considered the attempt of an owner to recover payments that it had made directly to a third party supplier (that had contracted with the yard) during the construction of a superyacht. The Commercial Court stressed the importance of establishing that the sums claimed by the third party suppliers were a result of a breach of Nobiskrug’s obligations and remitted the case back to the arbitration tribunal for further consideration.

08-10-2019 / Energy & Infrastructure

The court considers the circumstances under which quantum meruit can be claimed. In the absence of a legally enforceable agreement a party can claim a quantum meruit, which is Latin for “what one has earned”, but the circumstances in which this might be claimed may well be limited.

28-06-2019 / Energy & Infrastructure

In a decision handed down last month, the Commercial Court has considered, for the first time, the consequences under clause 12(e) of BIMCO SUPPLYTIME 2017 of failing to dispute an invoice before the due date: Boskalis Offshore Marine Contracting BV v Atlantic Marine and Aviation LLP (Atlantic Tonjer) [2019] EWHC 1213 (Comm).

28-06-2019 / Energy & Infrastructure

In Teesside Gas Transportation Ltd v CATS North Sea Ltd and others [2019] EWHC 1220 (Comm), the Commercial Court has provided guidance on the principles of contractual interpretation which apply to lengthy, complex and long-term contracts.

28-06-2019 / Energy & Infrastructure

In Teesside Gas Transportation Ltd v CATS North Sea Ltd and others 2019 EWHC 1220 (Comm), the Commercial Court has provided guidance on the principles of contractual interpretation which apply to lengthy, complex and long-term contracts

07-06-2019 / Maritime

London Arbitration 8/19 London Arbitration 9/19 A recent maritime arbitration has highlighted the need for parties to a time charter for a newbuild vessel to carefully consider the interplay between the time charter and the shipbuilding contract.

06-02-2019 / Energy & Infrastructure

In a decision that will be welcomed by construction contractors, the Court of Appeal has overturned an earlier TCC decision and found that a cap on liability had been incorporated into an interim contract between the parties that would be superseded by a final contract once agreed: Arcadis Consulting (UK) Ltd (formerly Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd) v AMEC (BCS) Limited (formerly CV Buchan Limited) [2018] EWCA Civ 2222.

06-02-2019 / Energy & Infrastructure

A recent appeal judgment has confirmed that an Entire Agreement clause does not exclude claims for misrepresentation without clear words which do so. The case, Al-Hasawi v Nottingham Forest Football Club Ltd and others [2018] EWHC 2884, overturned the first instance decision, which we discussed in our October 2018 Bulletin.

22-01-2019 / Maritime

International law firm Ince Gordon Dadds has advised Algoma Central Corporation (Algoma), a leading provider of marine transportation services, on the cancellation of four shipbuilding contracts with Uljanik and 3Maj Shipyard of Croatia The contracts related to the construction of self-unloading bulk carriers that were to operate on the Great Lakes

16-10-2018 / Energy & Infrastructure

The Court of Appeal decisions in two recent cases clarify the position as to when an exclusion clause might be subjected to UCTA’s reasonableness test and also give further guidance as to when a clause will be deemed unreasonable and, therefore, unenforceable.

16-10-2018 / Energy & Infrastructure

The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision of the Technology and Construction Court that parties to a construction contract can agree how to allocate the risk of concurrent delay to the works and exclude the prevention principle: North Midland Building Limited v Cyden Homes Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 1744.

16-10-2018 / Energy & Infrastructure

In NF Football Investments Limited and another v NFFC Group Holdings Limited and another [2018] EWHC 1346 (Ch), NF Football Investments (NF) entered into a share purchase agreement with NFF Group Holdings (NFF) by which NF purchased all the shares in Nottingham Forest Football Club from NFF. During the due diligence ahead of the agreement, NFF represented that the liabilities of the Club were about £6.5 million whereas NF argued that the true liabilities of the Club were over £10 million. NF claimed that NFF had misrepresented the liabilities and therefore owed NF the difference. NFF sought summary judgment dismissing the claim by NF.

28-06-2018 / Energy & Infrastructure

Phones 4U Limited (in administration) v EE Limited [2018] EWHC 49 (Comm) highlights the importance of parties choosing their words carefully in contractual notices. In this case, it was held that a party terminating a contract in express and sole reliance on a contractual right of termination was not able to claim loss of bargain damages on the basis of the other party’s repudiatory breach, even if such a breach existed.

28-06-2018 / Energy & Infrastructure

The recent ruling in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R (for and on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive) v Paul Jukes 2018 EWCA Crim 176 (R v Paul Jukes) reiterates the message delivered in The RBS Rights Issue Litigation 2016 EWHC 3161 (Ch) (RBS) and The Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corp Ltd 2017 EWHC 1017 (QB) (SFO) on the interpretation of legal professional privilege in the context of internal investigations and the need to act cautiously before legal proceedings have been formally brought

23-02-2018 / Energy & Infrastructure

Can parties to a construction contract expressly allocate the risk of concurrent delay to the works? The answer from Mr Justice Fraser in North Midland Building Limited v Cyden Homes Limited [2017] EWHC 2414 (TCC) is a crystal clear “yes”.

23-02-2018 / Energy & Infrastructure

Persuading an English court that it should imply a term into a contract, especially where the parties are sophisticated, well-advised companies, is a difficult task for any lawyer.

19-10-2017 / Energy & Infrastructure

In the June 2017 edition of our Smart Contracting Bulletin, we wrote about the recent decision in Astor Management AG v Atalaya Mining plc 2017 EWHC 425 (Comm) which discussed whether an undertaking to use reasonable endeavours to enter into an agreement with a third party was enforceablenbspHot on the heels of Atalaya comes a further case looking at what is required of a party that has agreed to use its reasonable endeavours to achieve a particular outcome Minerva (Wandsworth) Ltd v Greenland Ram (London) Limited 2017 EWHC 1457 (Ch)

19-10-2017 / Energy & Infrastructure

Two new cases provide interesting insights as to when an exclusion clause will be deemed incorporated and reasonable enough to withstand the reasonableness test of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA)

04-08-2017 / Energy & Infrastructure

MT Højgaard A/S (Respondent) v E.ON Climate & Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Limited and another (Appellants) [2017] UKSC 59

04-07-2017 / Energy & Infrastructure

BIMCO has just released the new SUPPLYTIME 2017 as an updated version of its hugely successful standard form charterparty for offshore support vessels, SUPPLYTIME 2005. The new edition aims to balance out the interests of owners and charterers, modernise the charterparty’s content and tackle some of the shortcomings that have become apparent over the course of the last 12 years. The BIMCO revision committee has also taken into account recent case law on issues relevant to the SUPPLYTIME standard form.

09-06-2017 / Energy & Infrastructure

It is not unusual for parties, during negotiations, to try and reach agreement for further work beyond the scope of the initial contract; most notably in the form of an option agreement. In the context of a shipbuilding dispute, the court has recently considered whether an option agreement was void for uncertainty: Teekay Tankers Ltd v STX Offshore & Shipbuilding Co. Ltd [2017] EWHC 253 (Comm).

04-05-2017 / Maritime

During the negotiation of a shipbuilding contract, it is common for parties to enter into an option agreement for the construction of additional vessels.

23-02-2017 / Energy & Infrastructure

Since we last discussed the subject, in our July 2016 Bulletin, third party litigation funding (TPF) has been the subject of no fewer than three reported cases, with each of the three main levels of the judicial hierarchy having its say Significantly for this readership, the first and third of these cases concerned disputes in the offshore oil and gas sector nbsp

26-01-2017 / Maritime

Ronelp Marine Ltd and others v Stx Offshore amp Shipbuilding Co Ltd and another 2016 EWHC 2228 (Ch)

19-10-2016 / Maritime

The Shipping E-Brief is a quarterly publication providing you with key information on legal decisions and developments in shipping and related business areas.

18-10-2016 / Maritime

Saga Cruises BDF Limited and Saga Cruises Limited (formerly known as Acromas Shipping Limited) v. Fincantieri Spa (formerly Fincantieri Cantieri Navali Italiani Spa) [2016] EWHC 1875 (Comm)

14-07-2016 / Energy & Infrastructure

A decade ago, and after a slow burn starting almost 40 years before, litigation funding, or third party funding (TPF) joinedforces with after the event insurance (ATE) and started to play an increasing role in litigation and arbitration. Then, catalysed by the implementation in April 2013 of the ‘Jackson reforms’ which were intended to control the costs of civil litigation and promote access to justice, the use of TPF and ATE accelerated exponentially, such that they now offer significant opportunities to claimants and potential claimants seeking to de-risk and take the cost out of the litigation or arbitration in which they might need to become involved.