Friedhelm Eronat v CPNC International (Chad) Ltd & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2880 (Comm)
Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Limited & Ors v Tughans (a firm)
9 November 2022
[2022] EWHC 2825 (Comm)
High Court
After a court case, lawyers argued about the details. The judge was annoyed by how long it took and said future cases should be resolved much faster. One of the lawyers got to appeal part of the decision, but the other mostly lost. The losing lawyer has to pay some of the winning lawyer's fees.
Key Facts
- •This ruling addresses consequential issues arising from a judgment handed down on 14 October 2022 ([2022] EWHC 2589 (Comm)).
- •The case involves applications for permission to appeal by both Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Limited & Others (RSA) and Tughans.
- •The judgment criticizes the lengthy and delayed process of resolving consequential issues after the initial judgment.
- •The court addresses several grounds of appeal from both parties, concerning the construction of the Notice of Arbitration, insured loss, the Tughans' Letter of Engagement, and irregularities in the arbitration process.
Legal Principles
The trial is not a dress rehearsal; arguments on appeal should not be significantly different from those presented at trial.
FAGE UK Ltd v Chabani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5, [114]
Section 69(8) of the Arbitration Act 1996 sets the test for granting permission to appeal.
Arbitration Act 1996, s.69(8)
Courts should resolve consequential issues promptly and proportionately, often through short oral hearings within 7-14 days of judgment.
Contra Holdings Ltd v MJC Bamford [2022] EWHC 2799 (Comm)
Outcomes
RSA's application for permission to appeal on the s.67 issue (construction of the Notice of Arbitration) is refused.
RSA lacks a realistic prospect of success; there is no reason to compromise speedy finality by allowing a third opportunity to argue this.
RSA's application for permission to appeal on the issue of what constitutes an insured loss is granted.
The issue raises an arguable point of law of general public importance.
RSA's application for permission to appeal on the interpretation of the Tughans' Letter of Engagement is refused.
RSA's construction is inconsistent with the terms of the agreement and would have uncommercial consequences.
Tughans' application for permission to appeal on the s.68 question (arbitrator irregularity) is refused.
Tughans lacks a realistic prospect of success; any potential prejudice to RSA can be addressed through the remission to the arbitrator.
Tughans' application for permission to appeal relating to RSA's arguments on the construction of the Tughans Letter of Engagement is refused.
The issue is rendered moot by the court's decision on RSA's ground 3; Tughans' own arguments in the hearing support the court's conclusion.
RSA is ordered to pay 60% of Tughans' costs (£72,000 interim payment).
Tughans is substantially the successful party, but RSA's arguments on certain issues occupied considerable time and resources.