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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll