header-logo header-logo

13 June 2025
Issue: 8120 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 13 June 2025

Arbitration

CAFI (Commodity & Freight Integrators) DMCC v GTCS Trading DMCC [2025] EWHC 1350 (Comm)

The Commercial Court allowed the claimant buyer (CAFI’s) challenges, to a Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA) Appeal Award made under ss 67 (substantive jurisdiction), 68 (serious procedural irregularity) and 69 (appeal on a point of law) of the Arbitration Act 1996. The defendant (GTCS), as seller of a cargo of Russian milling wheat, had brought an arbitration claim for damages against CAFI for breach of two contracts. The claim was rejected but overturned on appeal. The court determined that the GAFTA Appeal Board erred in finding it had no jurisdiction to interpret the terms of a second contract between the parties and how it impacted their rights and liabilities under the first contract. This error led to the Board exceeding its jurisdiction by holding CAFI liable for damages. The court also granted leave to appeal on a point of law regarding the Board’s approach to determining whether liability for damages had been waived.


Costs

Willis

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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll