Find a Barrister

Find an Arbitrator

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
people

Contact

Contact with chambers should be made through the Practice Management Team. They are happy to discuss client requirements and provide further information on such matters as the expertise and experience of individual members, fees, working practices and languages spoken. We have members able to work in French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Greek and Chinese (Mandarin).

Outside working hours, a member of our team is always available to be contacted on matters of an urgent nature. Contact should be made using the Chambers main number or email.

To contact our Singapore office, please contact our BD Director, Asia, Rachel Foxton. Out of office hours calls will automatically be diverted to our clerking team in London.

London

20 Essex Street
London
WC2R 3AL

enquiries@twentyessex.com
t: +44 20 7842 1200
DX 0009 Lond/Chan Lane

Singapore

28 Maxwell Road
#02-03
Maxwell Chambers Suites
Singapore 069120

singapore@twentyessex.com
t: +65 62257230

Contact

Contact with chambers should be made through the Practice Management Team. They are happy to discuss client requirements and provide further information on such matters as the expertise and experience of individual members, fees, working practices and languages spoken. We have members able to work in French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Greek and Chinese (Mandarin).

Outside working hours, a member of our team is always available to be contacted on matters of an urgent nature. Contact should be made using the Chambers main number or email.

To contact our Singapore office, please contact our BD Director, Asia, Rachel Foxton. Out of office hours calls will automatically be diverted to our clerking team in London.

London

20 Essex Street
London
WC2R 3AL

enquiries@twentyessex.com
t: +44 20 7842 1200
DX 0009 Lond/Chan Lane

Singapore

28 Maxwell Road
#02-03
Maxwell Chambers Suites
Singapore 069120

singapore@twentyessex.com
t: +65 62257230

30/06/2015

Bunge v Nidera [2015] UKSC 43

This is an archived article, and some links may not work. Contact us if you have any questions.

The Supreme Court (Lords Sumption, Toulson, Neuberger, Clarke and Mance) has handed down judgment in Bunge v Nidera [2015] UKSC 43, an important, unanimous, decision clarifying both the scope of Clause 20 in the GAFTA 49 Form (the Default Clause) and the decision of the House of Lords in The Golden Victory [2007] AC 353.

The central question was as to the quantum of damages in circumstances where the Sellers wrongfully repudiated the contract, but the Russian prohibition on the export of wheat during the summer of 2010 would have provided them with a right of termination had the contract continued in effect. The issues to be determined were:

  1. On the assumption, in the Sellers’ favour, that The Golden Victory applies to the present case and that the Buyers on the facts of the present case would be entitled only to recover nominal damages for the Sellers’ breach absent the GAFTA Default Clause (“the assumption”), does that Clause entitle the Buyers to recover damages in the sum of US$3,062,500 as awarded by the GAFTA Appeal Board?

  2. If not, is the assumption valid (it being Buyers’ contention that is it not valid, but the Sellers’ contention that it is valid)?

Lords Sumption and Toulson, giving the two reasoned judgments, held that:

  • The language of Clause 20 is neither wide nor clear enough to create a complete code on the quantification of damages. It does not preclude consideration of the fact that the Russian prohibition remained extant at the time of the contractual shipment period. Accordingly, notwithstanding the reference to assessing damages “on the date of default” and it being common ground that the relevant date was 11 August 2010, the Buyers were entitled to nominal damages only, having suffered no loss: had the contract not been terminated, the Sellers would have been entitled to avail themselves of their contractual right of cancellation.

  • As to The Golden Victory [2007] AC 353, that decision was correct, and the doubts and criticism levelled against it unjustified. Contrary to the suggestions of the GAFTA Board of Appeal and Hamblen J at first instance, the reasoning of the majority applies equally to cases where the contract provides for a single act of performance (in contrast to several successive acts).

The decision of the Court of Appeal ([2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 404, LJJs Moore-Bick, Floyd and Clarke) was reversed. The Buyers were awarded nominal damages in the sum of US$5.

Philip Edey QC and Leonora Sagan appeared for the Buyers (instructed by Hill Dickinson)


Share