This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal arising from two Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA) appeal awards related to Cost & Freight free out (C&FFO) Mundra sales of pulses. The primary issues revolve around the jurisdiction of the court on appeals from arbitration awards under the Arbitration Act 1996.
Appeal by Viterra BV:
- The appeal challenges the jurisdiction of the court concerning appeals from arbitration awards.
- Viterra BV contends that the Court of Appeal made errors in:
- Amending the question of law for which permission to appeal had been granted.
- Deciding a question of law that the GAFTA Appeal Board was not asked to determine and on which it did not make a decision.
- Making findings of fact on matters on which the GAFTA Appeal Board had made no findings.
Cross-Appeal by Sharp Corporation Ltd:
- The cross-appeal addresses the GAFTA Appeal Board’s award of damages to Viterra BV.
- The damages were awarded based on the estimated C&FFO Mundra value of the goods under GAFTA Contract No 24 Default Clause.
- Sharp Corporation Ltd argues that damages should have been awarded based on the "as is, where is" value, which refers to the estimated ex-warehouse Mundra value of the goods. This is because, at the date of default, the goods had already been landed, warehoused, and customs cleared in Mundra.
There are two main themes explored in this podcast:
- The procedural safeguard on court appeals from arbitration decisions; and
- How mitigation and the compensation principle interrelate for quantum.
How is it that the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal can differ so significantly?
And yet, was there a better, appropriate way to get to the same answer?
How to frame a question for appeal without leaving it susceptible to attack?
And, on the flipside, how to attack an appeal on procedural grounds?
Spotify | Apple Podcasts | YouTube
