Commodities arbitration

Commodities—types of contract and disputes

This Practice Note provides an introduction to the types of contracts and disputes which commonly arise in commodities trades as well as an introduction to the various arbitral bodies which handle such disputes. In particular, the Practice Note: considers the distinction between hard and soft commodities; provides an overview of contracts of affreightment and charterparties; discusses cost, insurance and freight (CIF) and free on board (FOB) contracts; and, refers to quality disputes, documentary compliance disputes, time of shipment disputes and force majeure disputes. This topic may be referred to as international commodity trading contracts and disputes. For

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

The English court’s jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunctions in relation to proceedings against third parties to an arbitration agreement (Renaissance Securities Ltd v ILLC Chlodwig Enterprises)

Arbitration analysis: This decision arises from Renaissance Securities (Cyprus) Ltd’s (Renaissance) application to vary an anti-suit injunction (ASI) previously granted by the English court in November 2023. The ASI had been granted by the English court to prevent the six defendants in the underlying dispute (the defendants) from proceeding against Renaissance in the Russian courts or any other court or tribunal, in breach of parties’ agreement to arbitrate under the rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). Following the ASI in November 2023, the second and sixth defendants (the Minority Defendants) commenced claims in Russia for damages against certain companies affiliated with Renaissance (the RREs), who were not parties to the arbitration agreement between Renaissance and the defendants. In response, Renaissance filed an application at the English court in which the main issue for determination was whether the court had jurisdiction to grant an ASI preventing the defendants from continuing and/or commencing claims against the RREs before the Russian courts. The English court, applying the English rules of construction and interpretation of contracts, held that the arbitration agreements between Renaissance and the defendants were never intended to apply to claims by or against third parties. The court also held that the Minority Defendants’ claims against the RREs were not vexatious or better suited to an alternative jurisdiction, as to require an order of the English court prohibiting the Minority Defendants from continuing the Russian proceedings against the RREs. Written by Dr Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and Adeleresimi Philips-Adeleye, senior associate at ALN Nigeria|Aluko & Oyebode, Nigeria.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents