header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
09 January 2015
Issue: 7635 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Conflict of laws

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Toyota Tsusho Sugar Trading Ltd v Prolat SRL [2014] EWHC 3649 (Comm), [2014] All ER (D) 105 (Nov)

The Commercial Court granted the claimant, Toyota Tsusho Sugar Trading Ltd, a declaration that an English arbitration tribunal had substantive jurisdiction over any dispute between Toyota and the defendant, arising out of or in connection with a contract for the sale of sugar by Toyota to the defendant.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Sidley—Philip Hertz & Melissa Coakley

Sidley—Philip Hertz & Melissa Coakley

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Consultant firms face tougher scrutiny
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
NLJ this week: AI grievances demand human judgement
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
NLJ this week: Dishonesty, promotions & procedural headaches
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
NLJ this week: Remote hearings reshape the courtroom
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
NLJ this week: Can landlords force the door?
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll