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 that although the Court of Appeal did not err in amending

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll