Maritime arbitration organisations Many maritime arbitrations are conducted in accordance with the procedural rules of maritime arbitration organisations which recommend and promote template arbitration clauses. Most of those organisations do not administer the arbitration proceedings. The leading organisations historically have been centred in London and New York. However, with the movement of trade flows from the European and North American regions to the Asia-Pacific region, arbitration organisations have developed, particularly in China (Beijing and Shanghai) and Singapore. Those leading organisations are the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA), the Society of Maritime Arbitrators (SMA), the China Maritime Arbitration Commission (CMAC) and the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (SCMA). Other important and increasingly active maritime arbitration centres include the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA), which operates a dedicated maritime arbitration centre and maritime arbitration rules. The current procedural rules of each of the LMAA, SMA, CMAC and SCMA are summarised in the table below. Full details of those organisations, including their panels of arbitrators and their rules can be found on their websites, which

For further practical guidance on the financing of energy, power and resources projects across a number of sectors, including those discussed in this Practice Note, see also textbook: Energy and Resources Financing: A Practical Handbook. What types of maritime contracts are used in the offshore oil & gas industry? Vessels are used extensively in the offshore oil & gas sector. Types of vessels typically include platform supply/offshore utility vessels, safety vessels, cable laying ships and ice breakers, supply vessels, drill ships and offshore barges (for instance equipped with heavy lifting cranes and/or accommodation modules). There is also a wide category of exploration, production, storage and/or offloading craft such as floating production, storage, and offloading (FPSO) vessels, floating storage and offloading (FSO) units, and floating Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) vessels. These vessels generally resemble ships but usually have some sort of connection to the seabed or to surface/subsea production facilities. Such vessels are beyond the scope of this Practice Note. Some of the most common maritime contracts encountered in the offshore oil & gas

A maritime court refers, in practice, to a court exercising admiralty or maritime jurisdiction over disputes arising from shipping, navigation, marine commerce and marine casualties. In the UK and Ireland the term is descriptive rather than a formal statutory label, and is used to denote the relevant court or division handling maritime claims.In England and Wales, “maritime court” commonly refers to the Admiralty Court within the King’s Bench Division of the High Court, which deals with ship arrest, collisions, salvage, limitation of liability, carriage of goods by sea and marine insurance disputes. In Scotland, admiralty and maritime matters are heard primarily in the Court of Session. In Northern Ireland, maritime claims are dealt with in the High Court’s Queen’s Bench Division exercising admiralty jurisdiction. In Ireland, the High Court exercises admiralty jurisdiction, including in rem proceedings against ships and other maritime property. Across all jurisdictions, a maritime court typically applies a mix of domestic statute (for example, Merchant Shipping Acts), international conventions and common law, and is central to resolving shipping disputes, enforcing maritime liens and allocating liability for maritime incidents.

A maritime lien is a non‑possessory security right that arises by operation of law against a ship, cargo or freight to secure certain maritime claims, such as damage done by a ship, salvage, crew wages or master’s disbursements. It attaches to the vessel itself (a “right in rem”) and can be enforced by arrest and judicial sale of the ship, irrespective of changes in ownership, subject to priority rules.In England & Wales and Northern Ireland, maritime liens are principally recognised and shaped by case law, supplemented by the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the Administration of Justice Act 1956. They are distinct from statutory rights in rem under those Acts and from contractual maritime charges or mortgages.In Scotland, maritime liens are also recognised through case law and the law of arrestment and security, though procedural enforcement differs from the Admiralty practice in England & Wales and Northern Ireland.In Ireland, the concept is similarly grounded in common law and Admiralty jurisdiction, with comparable categories of maritime lien and enforcement by ship arrest.Across all four jurisdictions, maritime liens are narrowly construed, arise only for defined classes of maritime claims, and play a central role in ship finance, risk allocation and enforcement strategy in shipping disputes.

ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 18 February 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CAT judgment in relation to an applications for a a collective proceedings order by Mr Mark McLaren who sought permission to act as the class representative to bring opt-out collective proceedings under section 47(B) of the Competition Act 1998. Latest development On 18 February 2022, the CAT issued its judgment in which the CAT held (amongst other things) that: (i) it is just and reasonable for the Applicant to act as class representative; and (ii) the claims are eligible to be brought as collective proceedings. It held that there is an identifiable class, the claims raise common issues (particularly in relation to passing on) and they are suitable to be brought in collective proceedings. Therefore, the CAT decided to grant the CPO application. However, this is subject to the need for the applicant to develop

The process by which a derivative is valued, based on the daily closing prices of underlying variables.

An amount included by a contractor in its tender price to allow for matters such as margin, risk and financing costs.

Marked for identification describes an exhibit that is labelled and referred to in court, but not (or not yet) admitted as evidence. It is commonly used where a document, object or photograph needs to be shown to a witness or preserved for the record, while the judge has not ruled on its admissibility, relevance or evidential weight.In practice, the item is given an identification mark or reference (for example, “ID1”) so it can be clearly distinguished from productions or exhibits that have been formally admitted. This assists examination and cross-examination, appellate review and accurate transcript preparation.The expression is a descriptive procedural term rather than one generally defined in legislation. Its use is recognised in criminal and civil practice across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, with only minor differences in terminology (for example, “productions” in Scotland). An item marked for identification does not automatically become part of the evidential record and may ultimately be excluded, admitted later by agreement or ruling, or simply retained as background material.

Law360, London: The High Court has ordered Markel (UK) Ltd to disclose documents relating to its denial of professional negligence insurance cover to a surveyor, which is the subject of a £14m claim by an agricultural lender.

Directive 2003/6/EC on insider dealing and market manipulation, which came into force on 1 July 2005. It aimed to fight cross-border market abuse by establishing a common approach among EU Member States. The Market Abuse Directive was repealed and replaced by the EU Market Abuse Regulation, with effect from 3 July 2016.

Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on market abuse which repealed the Market Abuse Directive and its implementing legislation on 3 July 2016. The ‘Market Abuse Regulation’ introduced an updated and strengthened civil market abuse regime across the EU extending the scope of the previous regime to new markets, new platforms and new behaviours. It contains measures to prevent market abuse, to ensure the integrity of EU financial markets and to enhance investor protection and confidence in those markets.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. In each section of this Practice Note, links are given to the relevant provisions of EU and/or UK legislation, as applicable, and significant divergence between relevant EU and UK legislation is indicated. EU Market Abuse Regulation—background and purpose The Market Abuse Regulation(the EU Market Abuse Regulation) repealed and replaced the existing Market Abuse Directive (Directive 2003/6/EC) (OJ L 96/16) (MAD) and its implementing legislation on 3 July 2016. The EU Market Abuse Regulation introduced an updated and strengthened EU market abuse regime, incorporating a wider range of, and tougher, sanctions. Outside of the UK, the Market Abuse Regulation was complemented by the Directive on Criminal Sanctions for Market Abuse Directive 2014/57/EU (CSMAD). The UK used its powers to opt out of CSMAD as it already has an established criminal regime under the Criminal Justice Act 1993 and the Financial Services Act 2012 for market abuse. For an overview of CSMAD, see Practice Note: Directive 2014/57/EU on criminal sanctions for market abuse. The majority