header-logo header-logo

24 May 2024
Issue: 8072 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 24 May 2024

Contract

Sharp Corp Ltd v Viterra BV (­previously known as Glencore ­Agriculture BV) [2024] UKSC 14, [2024] All ER (D) 31 (May)

The Supreme Court ruled on the appeal and the cross-appeal which arose out of two Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA) appeal awards under the Arbitration Act 1996 relating to cost & freight (C&F) free out Mundra sales made of pulses by the appellant seller to the respondent buyer pursuant to the GAFTA Contract No 24 Default Clause, where damages were awarded by the GAFTA Appeal Board to the appellant on the basis of the estimated C&F free out Mundra value of the goods. The court of Appeal (Civil Division) allowed the respondent’s appeal but did so in relation to a question of law which it had amended by adding to the question the wording ‘in the circumstances found by the Appeal Board in the Awards’. It also held that damages should be awarded on the basis that the contracts had been varied. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, held

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