Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

LAW REPORT: CASE SUMMARIES: 12 JANUARY 1998

Sunday 11 January 1998 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The following notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.

Arbitration

Halki Shipping Corp v Sopex Oils Ltd; CA (Hirst, Henry, Swinton Thomas LJJ) 19 Dec 1997.

Where the terms of a charterparty provided that any dispute arising from it should be referred to arbitration, the plaintiff was not entitled to issue proceedings in the High Court for summary judgment under RSC Ord 14 in respect of a claim for which the defendant did not admit liability. Notwithstanding the plaintiff's contention that the defendant had no arguable defence, once money had been claimed there was a "dispute" to be referred to arbitration unless and until the defendant admitted that the sum was due and payable.

Nicholas Hamblen QC (Dorman & Co) for the plaintiff; Richard Waller (Clifford Chance) for the defendant.

Contract

Rafsanjani Pistachio Producers Co- operative v Kaufmanns Ltd; QBD (Commercial Ct) (Rix J) 19 Dec 1997.

A contract which omitted an important term for future agreement could still be binding provided that it could be shown that the parties intended to enter into legal relations and that the term to be agreed was not too uncertain.

Stephen Males (Taylor Joynson Garrett) for the plaintiff; Robert Deacon (Evans Dodd) for the defendant.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in