arbitration

Subscribe to arbitration

The COVID pandemic has impacted nearly every aspect of global commerce, and the shipping industry is no exception having experienced severe disruption in many different ways.

Over the past two years, most maritime lawyers will have received multiple enquiries in relation to delays caused to vessels by COVID, where there is a dispute as to whether owners or charterers are liable under the terms of the charterparty.

Against this background, two London arbitration awards have recently been published which shed some light on how Tribunals are grappling with these issues.
Continue Reading COVID related off-hire decisions from the LMAA

In DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v. Gemini Ocean Shipping Co Ltd [2022] EWHC 181 (Comm), DHL (“Charterers”) succeeded in an application against Gemini (“Owners”) to set aside an arbitration award pursuant to section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “Act”).

Mr Justice Jacobs held that a “subject” provision in a putative fixture requiring “shipper/receivers approval” was of an unqualified character. The Court found that the contract would not become binding unless and until Charterers lifted the “subject”, and on the facts, this had never occurred. Accordingly, no arbitration agreement came into existence and the Tribunal did not have substantive jurisdiction when it determined that Charterers had repudiated the charterparty.
Continue Reading To what are “subjects” subject?

The question of whether COVID-19 would forever change the world as we know it remains to be answered. For the time being, however, the pandemic has certainly changed the way we live and conduct business. In an effort to adjust to the current requirements of strict social distancing, we have had to be creative and use technology to our advantage. For instance, in order to sustain the administration of justice, we have had to allow virtual hearings to become the new norm.

In April 2020, Richard Gunn (partner), Elli Aidini (associate) and Katherine Varney (trainee) were involved in a three-day virtual arbitration hearing via Zoom. The experience was unique for all. Although initially there were concerns about the confidentiality of the process and the ability of the parties to overcome technical difficulties, the hearing was concluded successfully. In this article, we will attempt to share our experience of a virtual hearing and recommendations for conducting such hearings in the future.
Continue Reading Preparing and attending a virtual arbitration hearing

On 13 March 2018, the Court of Appeal reversed the Commercial Court decision in Tonicstar Limited v (1) Allianz Insurance PLC; (2) Sirius International Insurance Corporation. Legatt LJ gave the leading judgment in which it was held that a QC with more than ten years’ experience in insurance legal practice is eligible for the appointment…

Hot on the heels of the Sino v Dana decision (reported in our blog on 16 November), the Commercial Court considered the question of notice of appointment of an arbitrator once again in Glencore Agriculture BV (formerly Glencore Grain BV) v Conqueror Holdings Limited [2017] EWHC 2893. 

This is another case where the Respondent (Glencore as Charterer) took no part in the arbitration and was unaware of the proceedings until it received the Award.…
Continue Reading Appointment of Arbitrator

Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping & Trading Pte Singapore Ltd & Anr [2017] EWCA Civ 1703

Background

The case looks at the question of when notices of arbitration passed to a counterparty’s agent can be considered effective service on the counterparty in circumstances where that the agent is not authorised to receive the notice. It was held by the Court of Appeal that in this case, the agent possessed both implied actual and ostensible authority to receive the notice; however, this “rare case” was decided very much on its facts.

Dana (as Owner) had a claim against Sino (as Charterer) under a Contract of Affreightment (“COA”) dated 9 April 2013. Sino’s role in the negotiation was restricted to its director signing his name – it was fronting for a Chinese company, BX, which was to handle the day to day operation of the COA.

All but one of the communications following signature of the COA were between Dana and a Mr Cai of BX, though Dana believed they were in contact with employees of Sino and were completely unaware of BX’s involvement. Indeed, Sino’s broker informed Dana’s broker that Mr Cai was Sino’s representative or employee.
Continue Reading Service of Arbitration Notice

In London Arbitration 5/12, the Tribunal considered the relationship between the requirement that a berth must be “always accessible” and the “weather working day” provision in the laytime clause in the context of determining whether Owners were entitled to damages independent of the laytime regime.

The vessel was chartered on an amended Syconamex form. The…

This post was written by Andrew Tetley.

In a decision handed down 10 October 2012, the French Supreme Court held that an arbitrator who failed to disclose facts that objectively might have called into question his impartiality or independence, did not of itself mean he had failed in his obligation of impartiality and independence.…

The London Maritime Arbitrators’ Association (“LMAA”) has published a revised version of its Terms, to apply to all references commenced on or after 1 January 2012 (to be referred to as the “LMAA Terms 2012”).

Key differences between the LMAA Terms 2012 and the previous version include:

(a)    A Tribunal will be deemed to be…