Difference between revisions of "Arbitration Issues"

From DMC
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(91 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
DMC/SandT/10/16
+
DMC/Arbn/23/01
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v Gemini Ocean Shipping Co Ltd (The “Newcastle Express”)'''
 +
 
 +
'''English Court of Appeal: Males, Birss and Snowden LJJ: [2022] EWCA Civ 1555: 24 November 2022:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/DHL_Project_and_Chartering_v_Gemini_Ocean_Shipping_-_The_Newcastle_Express]]
 +
 
 +
Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2022/1555.html
 +
 
 +
'''VOYAGE CHARTER: WHETHER VOYAGE CHARTER AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENT THEREIN CONCLUDED: WHETHER ARBITRATOR HAD SUBSTANTIVE JURISDICTION TO MAKE AWARD: WHETHER “SUBJECT SHIPPER/RECEIVERS APPROVAL” OF THE VESSEL PROVISION IN RECAP A CONDITION PRECEDENT AND SUBJECT TO “APPROVAL NOT TO BE UNREASONABLY WITHHELD” TERM IN INCORPORATED PROFORMA CHARTER: APPLICATION UNDER SECTIONS 67 OF ARBITRATION ACT 1996'''
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/2022/04
 +
 +
'''England'''
 +
 +
'''ENEMALTA PLC v. THE STANDARD CLUB ASIA LIMITED [2021] EWHC 1215 (COMM)''' 
 +
 +
'''English Commercial Court (QBD): Judge Pelling QC: 26 April 2021:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/ENEMALTA_PLC_v_Standard_Club_Asia]
 +
 +
Judgment available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2021/551.html
 +
 
 +
'''WHETHER THE HIGH COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE VALIDITY OF A LETTER OF UNDERTAKING ISSUED BY A P&I CLUB - CONTAINING AN ENGLISH HIGH COURT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE - IN RESPECT OF THEIR OWNER MEMBERS’ ALLEGED LIABLITY FOR  DAMAGE TO A SUBMARINE CABLE, IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE OWNERS HAD INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS IN SINGAPORE SEEKING TO ESTABLISH A LIMITATION FUND THERE IN RESPECT OF THE INCIDENT UNDER THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR MARITIME CLAIMS CONVENTION OF 1976'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/22/03
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''ARI v WXJ'''
 +
 
 +
'''English Commercial Court: Foxton J: [2022] EWHC 1543 (Comm): 20 June 2022:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/ARI_v_WXJ]]
 +
 
 +
Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2022/1543.html 
 +
 
 +
'''ARBITRATION: LMAA TERMS: ARBITRATION COMMENCED BY FIRST PARTY GIVING NOTICE NAMING ITS APPOINTED ARBITRATOR (“GGG”): NOTICE GAVE SECOND PARTY 14 DAYS TO APPOINT AND GIVE NOTICE OF ITS ARBITRATOR FAILING WHICH GGG WOULD BE APPOINTED AS SOLE ARBITRATOR: SECOND PARTY RECEIVED CONFIRMATION OF WILLINGNESS OF ARBITRATOR (“JJJ”) TO ACCEPT APPOINTMENT, WITHOUT AGREEMENT ON TERMS OR REMUNERATION, AND GAVE NOTICE TO FIRST PARTY, WITH COPIES TO GGG AND JJJ, STATING JJJ HAD BEEN APPOINTED AS ITS ARBITRATOR: WHETHER APPOINTMENT OF JJJ AND NOTICE THEREOF WAS VALID TO CONSTITUTE TRIBUNAL WITHIN 14-DAY TIME LIMIT'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/22/02
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''Ducat Maritime Ltd v Lavender Shipmanagement Inc (The “Majestic”)'''
 +
 
 +
'''English Commercial Court: Butcher J: [2022] EWHC 766 (Comm): 14 March 2022: [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Ducat_Maritime_v_Lavender_Shipmanagement_-_The_Majestic]]
 +
 
 +
Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2022/766.html
 +
 
 +
'''ARBITRATION: LMAA SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 2017: FINAL AWARD MADE IN OWNERS’ FAVOUR FOR USD37,831.83: ARBITRATOR SHOULD HAVE AWARDED USD28,277.91: ARBITRATOR ADDED VALUE OF CHARTERERS’ COUNTERCLAIM TO OWNERS’ CLAIM BY MISTAKE: ARBITRATOR TWICE REFUSED APPLICATIONS TO CORRECT AWARD UNDER SECTION 57 OF ARBITRATION ACT 1996: APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 68 OF ARBITRATION ACT 1996 TO SET ASIDE PART OF AWARD FOR SERIOUS IRREGULARITY'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/22/01
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 +
'''NWA & Anor v NVF & Ors [2021] EWHC 2666 (Comm)'''
 +
 
 +
Between (1) NWA (2) FSY and (1) NVF (2) RWX (3) KLB
 +
 +
'''English High Court (Commercial Court): Calver J.: 8 October 2021:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/NWA_and_Anor_v_NVF_&_Ors]]
 +
 
 +
'''CONTRACTUAL TERM: DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE: ARBITRATION CLAUSE REQUIRING MEDIATION BEFORE ARBITRATION: MEDIATION NEVER TOOK PLACE: REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION: AWARD ISSUED CONFIRMING TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION: CHALLENGE TO AWARD UNDER SECTION 67(1)(a) ARBITRATION ACT 1996: WHETHER NON-COMPLIANCE WITH MEDIATION PROVISION VITIATED SUBSTANTIVE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL: WHETHER THAT NON-COMPLIANCE ONLY AFFECTED ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CLAIM'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/21/08
 +
 
 +
'''Hong Kong'''
 +
 
 +
'''W v AW [2021] HKCFI 1707'''
 +
 
 +
'''High Court of Hong Kong: Justice Mimmie Chan: Date of Hearing: 22 March 2021: Date of Decision: 17 June 2021:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/W_v_AW]]'''
 +
 
 +
Judgment available on HKLII @ https://www.hklii.hk/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2021/1707.html?stem=&synonyms=&query=title(%222021%20HKCFI%201707%22)
 +
 
 +
'''ARBITRATION: ISSUE ESTOPPEL: TWO ARBITRATIONS BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES ON THE SAME ISSUES WITH DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS: WHETHER SECOND AWARD SHOULD BE SET ASIDE: APPARENT BIAS: WHETHER SECURITY SHOULD BE ORDERED'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/2021/07
 +
 
 +
'''Singapore'''
 +
 
 +
'''CAI v CAJ & CAK'''
 +
 +
'''Singapore High Court: S Mohan JC: [2021] SGHC 21: 29 January 2021:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/CAI_v_CAJ_&_CAK]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''CHALLENGE TO ARBITRATION AWARD: EXTENSION OF TIME (EOT) DEFENCE: NATURAL JUSTICE: PROPER ARBITRATION PROCEDURES: MODEL LAW ARTICLE 18: ICC RULES ARTICLE 23(4): DOCTRINE OF APPROBATION AND REPROBATION'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/21/06
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''Ulusoy Denizilik A.S. v COFCO Global Harvest (Zhangjiagang) Trading Co. Ltd (The "Ulusoy-11")
 +
 
 +
'''Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court): Mr Justice Bryan: [2020] EWHC 3645 (Comm): 28 August 2020:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Ulusoy_Denizilik_v_COFCO_Global_Harvest_(Zhangjiagang)_Trading_-_The_Ulusoy_11]]
 +
 
 +
'''ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION: BILLS OF LADING EXPRESSLY INCORPORATING CHARTERPARTY LAW AND ARBITRATION CLAUSE: APPLICABLE LAW GOVERNING ISSUE OF INCORPORATION: IDENTITY OF GOVERNING CHARTERPARTY: WHETHER LAW AND ARBITRATION CLAUSE INCORPORATED INTO BILLS OF LADING: BILL OF LADING HOLDERS BRING CARGO CLAIM IN PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (“PRC”): WHETHER THIS A BREACH OF LONDON ARBITRATION CLAUSE: WHETHER OWNERS ENTITLED TO ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION: ROME I REGULATION (REGULATION (EC) NO 593/2008), ARTICLE 10(1), (2).'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/21/05
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''Republic of Sierra Leone v SL Mining Limited [2021] EWHC 286 Comm, 15 February 2021'''
 +
 
 +
'''In the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court: Sir Michael Burton GBE, Sitting as Judge of the High Court:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Republic_of_Sierra_Leone_v_SL_Mining_Limited]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''CONTRACTUAL DISPUTE BETWEEN PARTIES: MULTI-TIER DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVISION: PARTIES TO FILE FOR ARBITRATION IF NO AMICABLE SETTLEMENT REACHED WITHIN 3 MONTHS: NON-COMPLIANCE WITH MULTI-TIER DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVISION: WHETHER NON-COMPLIANCE VITIATED TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION: WHETHER NON-COMPLIANCE A MATTER OF ADMISSIBILITY: CHALLENGING AN AWARD UNDER SECTION 67 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/21/04
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''Lavender Shipmanagement Inc v Ibrahima Sory Affrètement Trading SA and Others (The “Majesty”)'''
 +
 
 +
'''English Commercial Court: Mr Justice Calver: [2020] EWHC 3462 (Comm) – 16 December 2020: [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Lavender_Shipmanagement_v_Ibrahima_Sory_Affretement_Trading_&_Ors_the_MV_Majesty]]
 +
 
 +
'''LETTER OF UNDERTAKING: ARBITRATION AGREEMENT: APPLICATIONS UNDER S67 AND S69 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/21/03
 +
 
 +
 
 +
'''Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd'''
 +
 
 +
'''United Kingdom Supreme Court: Lord Justices Reed, Hodge and Lloyd-Jones, Lady Justices Black and Arden: [2020] UKSC 48:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Halliburton_Company_v_Chubb_Bermuda_Insurance]]
 +
 
 +
'''INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: IMPARTIALITY: LEGAL DUTY OF ARBITRATOR TO MAKE DISCLOSURE: MULTIPLE APPOINTMENTS IN DIFFERENT REFERENCES RELATING TO OVERLAPPING SUBJECT MATTER BUT INVOLVING A COMMON PARTY: WHETHER FAILURE TO DISCLOSE IS RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT OF APPARENT BIAS: WHETHER DUTY TO DISCLOSE OVERRIDES DUTY OF PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY: WHERE CONSENT TO DISCLOSURE MAY BE INFERRED: RECOGNITION OF SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MARITIME AND OTHER INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ARBITRATION'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/21/02
 +
 
 +
'''Singapore'''_
 +
 
 +
'''Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd v Avant Garde Maritime Services (Private) Limited:'''
 +
 
 +
'''Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore [2019] SGCA 33, 9 May 2019: Decision of the Court of Appeal (delivered by Judge of Appeal Judith Prakash): [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Rakna_Arakshaka_Lanka_Ltd_v_Avant_Garde_Maritime_Services_(Private)_Limited]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''PARTY DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST IT: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING) SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES: TRIBUNAL PROCEEDED WITH ARBITRATION DESPITE MOU: FINAL AWARD AGAINST PARTY: WHETHER NON-PARTICIPATING PARTY ENTITLED TO SET ASIDE ARBITRAL AWARD ON THE GROUNDS THAT TRIBUNAL HAD NO JURISDICTION'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/21/01
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''MVV Environment Devonport Ltd v NTO Shipping GMBH & Co KG MV Nortrader [2020] EWHC 1371 (Comm); Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court); Judge Pelling QC; 6 June 2020:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/MVV_Environment_Devonport_v_NTO_Shipping_The_MV_Nortrader]]
 +
 
 +
'''CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION OF ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL: CLAIMANT NAMED AS SHIPPER IN BILL OF LADING INCORPORATING CHARTERPARTY ARBITRATION CLAUSE: WHETHER CLAIMANT WRONGLY NAMED AS SHIPPER IN BILL OF LADING PREPARED BY AGENT: WHETHER AGENT HAD EXPRESS OR IMPLIED ACTUAL AUTHORITY OR OSTENSIBLE AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR CLAIMANT: EFFECT OF CLAIMANT’S SILENCE'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/19/02
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''Sea Master Shipping Inc v Arab Bank (Switzerland) Limited'''
 +
 
 +
'''English Commercial Court: Popplewell J.: 25 July 2018: [2018] EWHC 1902 (Comm):'''Sum[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Sea_Master_Shipping_v_Arab_Bank_(Switzerland)]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''CHALLENGE TO ARBITRATORS’ JURISDICTION UNDER S.67 ARBITRATION ACT 1996: WHETHER BILL OF LADING HOLDER BOUND BY ARBITRATION CLAUSE INCORPORATED INTO THE BILL OF LADING: WHETHER STATUS OF LAWFUL HOLDER UNDER S.2 OF CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT (1992) SUFFICIENT: WHETHER IN ADDITION, HOLDER MUST HAVE ASSUMED LIABILITIES UNDER S.3 OF THAT ACT'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/19/01
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''Sonact Group Ltd v Premuda SpA (The “Four Island”)'''
 +
 
 +
'''English Commercial Court: Males J: [2018] EWHC 3820 (Comm): 12 December 2018: [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Sonact_Group_Ltd_v_Premuda_SpA_-_The_Four_Island]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''VOYAGE CHARTER: ASBATANKVOY FORM: DEMURRAGE & HEATING COSTS CLAIM: SETTLEMENT AGREED BY EMAIL WHICH DID NOT REFER TO ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IN CHARTER: WHETHER ARBITRATORS HAD JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE CLAIM FOR THE AGREED SETTLEMENT SUM: CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO SECTION 67 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/16/01
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''Shagang South-Asia Trading Co Ltd v Daewoo Logistics'''
 +
 +
'''English High Court: Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court); Mr Justice Hamblen; [2015] EWHC 194 (Comm); 5 February 2015: [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Shagang_South-East_Asia_Trading_v_Daewoo_Logistics]]
 +
 
 +
'''ARBITRATION: WHETHER THERE WERE CLEAR INDICATORS THAT THE CURIAL LAW WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE VENUE OF THE ARBITRATION: WHETHER THE ARBITRATOR WAS VALIDLY APPOINTED'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/15/02
 +
 
 +
'''Singapore'''
 +
 
 +
'''Coal & Oil Co LLC v GHCL Ltd'''
 +
DMC/Arbn/15/01
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''Transgrain Shipping BV v Deiulemar Shipping SpA and Eleni Shipping Ltd (The “Eleni P”)'''
 +
 
 +
'''Commercial Court: Teare J: [2014] EWHC 4202 (Comm): 15 December 2014:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Transgrain_Shipping_v_Deiulemar_Shipping_and_Eleni_Shipping_-_The_Eleni_P]]'''
 +
 +
'''CHARTERPARTY: PARTIALLY CONFLICTING ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS: BESPOKE ARBITRATION CLAUSE AND STANDARD BIMCO ARBITRATION CLAUSES: CHALLENGE TO TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 67 ARBITRATION ACT 1996: PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS: PROPER CONSTITUTION OF TRIBUNAL'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/14/07
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''Viscous Global Investment Ltd v Palladium Navigation Corp (The “Quest”)'''
 +
 
 +
'''English Commercial Court: Males J: [2014] EWHC 2654 (Comm): 30 July 2014:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Viscous_Global_Investment_v_Palladium_Navigation_-_The_Quest]]
 +
 
 +
'''ARBITRATION: BILLS OF LADING (“BLS”): P&I CLUB LETTER OF UNDERTAKING (“LOU”): WHETHER ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IN LOU REPLACED ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS IN BLS: ARBITRATION ACT 1996 SECTION 32 APPLICATION'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/14/06
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''Emirates Trading Agency LLC v Prime Mineral Exports Private Limited'''
 +
 
 +
'''English High Court: Teare J.: [2014] EWHC 2104 (Comm): 1 July 2014:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Emirates_Trading_v_Prime_Mineral_Exports]]
 +
 
 +
'''CONTRACT: DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE REQUIRING PARTIES TO TRY TO RESOLVE DISPUTES BY FRIENDLY DISCUSSION WITHIN A CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS BEFORE RESORTING TO ARBITRATION: WHETHER ARBITRATORS LACKED JURISDICTION BECAUSE THIS PROVISION NOT COMPLIED WITH: WHETHER PROVISION UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCERTAIN: WHETHER PROVISION HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/14/05
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''Caresse Navigation Ltd v Office National de l’Electricité (the "Channel Ranger"): [2013] EWHC 3081 (Comm): Males J.: 14 October 2013:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Caresse_Navigation_v_Office_National_de_l'Electricité_-_the_Channel_Ranger]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''BILL OF LADING: WHETHER WORDS OF INCORPORATION REFERRING TO ARBITRATION ARE SUFFICIENT TO INCORPORATE CHARTERPARTY JURISDICTION PROVISIONS'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/14/04
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''Cottonex Anstalt v Patriot Spinning Mills Ltd [2014] EWHC 236 (Comm)'''
 +
 
 +
'''English High Court: Hamblen J.: 14 February 2014:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Cottonex_Anstalt_v_Patriot_Spinning_Mills]]
 +
 
 +
'''SALE AND PURCHASE: WHETHER CONTRACT INCORPORATED ALL TERMS OF THE BY-LAWS AND RULES OF THE INTERNATIONAL COTTON ASSOCIATION OR ONLY THE ARBITRATION PROVISIONS: GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS ON APPEAL FROM AN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL WITH EXPERIENCE OF THE RELEVANT TRADE'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/14/03
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''Beijing Jianlong Heavy Industry Group v Golden Ocean Group Ltd and Others'''
 +
 
 +
'''English Commercial Court: HHJ Mackie QC: [2013] EWHC 1063 (Comm): 1 May 2013: [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Beijing_Jianlong_Heavy_Industry_Group_v_Golden_Ocean_Group]]
 +
 
 +
'''ARBITRATION: SECTION 67 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996: APPEAL AGAINST SUBSTANTIVE JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNALS: GUARANTEES ALLEGEDLY ILLEGAL AND UNENFORCEABLE UNDER CHINESE LAW: VALIDITY OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS: PUBLIC POLICY'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/14/02
  
 
'''The Netherlands'''
 
'''The Netherlands'''
  
−
'''Mr Van Wassenaer Van Catwijck, also acting in his capacity as the representative of  Mr Saarberg and Mr Ariens (hereinafter called “the Arbitrators”) v Knowsley SK Limited, Manchester, United Kingdom (hereinafter called “KSK”)'''[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_Arbitrators_v._Knowsley_SK]
+
'''Transport and Maritime Arbitration Rotterdam-Amsterdam ("Tamara") Arbitration'''
 +
 
 +
'''Anonymous, Procedural Order of a Tamara arbitration tribunal, 10 December 2012:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Tamara_Arbitration]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''ARBITRATION UNDER TAMARA RULES: WHAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE ARBITRATION SHOULD BE FAILING A CHOICE PREVIOUSLY MADE BY THE PARTIES'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/14/01
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v. Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC'''
 +
 
 +
'''Supreme Court; Lords Neuberger, Mance, Clarke, Sumption, Toulson SCJJ; [2013] UKSC 35, 12 June 2013:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/AES_Ust-Kamenogorsk_Hydropower__Plant_LLP_v_Ust-KamenogorsK_Hydropower_Plant_JSC]]
 +
 
 +
'''WHETHER POWER TO INJUNCT COURT PROCEEDINGS IS MERELY ANCILLARY TO CURRENT OR INTENDED ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS: WHETHER S.44 ARBITRATION ACT 1996 LIMITS THE COURT’S INJUNCTIVE POWERS UNDER S.37 SENIOR COURTS ACT 1981'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/13/06
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''Fortress Value Recovery Fund I LLC (and others) v Blue Skye Special Opportunities Fund LLP (and others)'''
 +
 
 +
'''English Court of Appeal; Pill, Toulson, Tomlinson LJJ; [2013] EWCA Civ 367; 31 January 2013:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Fortress_Valley_Recovery__Fund_v_Blue_Skye_Special_Opportunities_Fund]]
 +
 
 +
'''ARBITRATION CLAUSE: THIRD PARTIES: CONTRACTS (RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES) ACT 1999, SS 8(1) & 8(2)'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/13/05
 +
 
 +
'''Hong Kong'''
 +
 
 +
'''Grand Pacific Holdings Ltd and Pacific China Holdings Ltd (in liq) (No 1)'''
  
−
'''Dutch Supreme Court. D.H. Beukenhorst (chairman), A.M.J. van Buchem-Spapens, J.C. van Oven, F.B.Bakels and W.D.H. Asser, 29 January 2010, Case number 09/00505''', published on www.rechtspraak.nl, LJN: BK2007
+
'''Hong Kong Court of Appeal: Tang VP, Kwan and Fok JJA: CACV No.136 of 2011, [2012] 4 HKLRD 1: 9 May 2012:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Grand_Pacific_Holdings_v_Pacific_China_Holdings]]'''
 +
 
 +
http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkca/2012/200.html
 +
 
 +
'''ARBITRATION: APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE ARBITRAL AWARD: ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTS.34(2)(A)(II) AND (IV), UNCITRAL MODEL LAW: AWARD TO BE SET ASIDE ONLY IF VIOLATION SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS: DISCRETION OF COURT TO REFUSE TO SET ASIDE DESPITE VIOLATION'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/SandT/13/04
 +
 
 +
'''Australia'''
 +
 
 +
'''Dampskibsselskabet Norden A/S v Gladstone Civil Pty Ltd'''
 +
 
 +
'''Full Court, Federal Court of Australia: Mansfield, Rares and Buchanan JJ: [2013] FCFCA 107, 18 September 2013:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Dampskibsselskabet_Norden_A/S_v_Gladstone_Civil_Pty_Ltd]]
 
   
 
   
−
'''ARBITRATION: DUTCH LAW: OBLIGATIONS OF ARBITRATORS TOWARDS PARTIES IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS'''
+
'''ENFORCEMENT IN AUSTRALIA OF FOREIGN ARBITRATION AWARD UNDER VOYAGE CHARTER: WHETHER VOYAGE CHARTER A “SEA CARRIAGE DOCUMENT” FOR THE PURPOSES OF S.11 OF THE AUSTRALIAN CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT 1991: WHETHER ARBITRATION AWARD UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE NOT MADE IN AUSTRALIA'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/13/03
 +
 
 +
'''Singapore'''
 +
 
 +
'''Maldives Airports Co Ltd  & Anor v. GMR Male International Airport Pte Ltd, [2013] SGCA 16: Singapore Court of Appeal: Judgment delivered by Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA and Woo Bih Li J on 6 December 2012:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Maldives_Airports_v_GMR_Male_International]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''Arbitration: Interim Order for Injunction under Section 12A(4) of International Arbitration Act ("IAA"): Meaning of “asset” under Section 12A(4) IAA: Preservation of contractual rights and choses in action as “assets” under Section 12A(4) of IAA'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/13/02
 +
 
 +
'''Singapore'''
 +
 
 +
'''Astro Nusantara International BV and others v. PT Ayunda Prima Mitra and others [2012] SGHC 157: Singapore High Court: Judgment delivered by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J on 22 October 2012: [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Astro_Nusantara_International_&_Others_v_PT_Ayunda_Prima_Mitra_&_Others]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''ARBITRATION: INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRAL AWARD MADE IN SAME TERRITORY AS FORUM IN WHICH RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT SOUGHT: PARTY NOT ENTITLED TO CHALLENGE JURISDICTION OF ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AT SETTING-ASIDE OR ENFORCEMENT STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: PARTY WHO FAILS TO CHALLENGE AWARD ON JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO ART. 16 OF MODEL LAW DEEMED TO ACCEPT FINALITY OF AWARD ON JURISDICTION'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/13/01
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''Chantiers de L’Atlantique SA v Gaztransport & Technigaz SAS'''
 +
 
 +
'''English High Court (Commercial Court): Flaux J: [2011] EWHC 3383 (Comm): 20 December 2011: [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Chantiers_de_L'Atlantique_v_Gaztransport_&_Technigaz]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''ARBITRATION: SETTING ASIDE ARBITRAL AWARD ON GROUND OF FRAUD: EXTENSION OF TIME GRANTED, GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ALLEGATIONS: FRAUD BY TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE OF WINNING PARTY IN EVIDENCE TO ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL: DELIBERATE CONCEALMENT OF TECHNICAL TEST RESUTLS: LACK OF CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN NON-DISCLOSURE AND DECISION OF TRIBUNAL'''
 +
 
  
 +
DMC/Arbn/12/03
  
 
'''Singapore'''
 
'''Singapore'''
  
−
DMC/SandT/09/01
+
'''Singapore High Court'''
 +
 
 +
'''Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd v. Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2012] SGHC 157 : Judgment delivered by Woo Bih Li J on 31 July 2012: [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Daimler_South_East_Asia_v_Front_Row_Investments_(Singapore)]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''ARBITRATION: WAIVER OF RIGHT OF RECOURSE UNDER ICC RULES OF ARBITRATION (1998): EXCLUSION OF APPEAL ON QUESTION OF LAW ARISING OUT OF ARBITRATION AWARD PURSUANT TO SECTION 49(2) ARBITRATION ACT'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/12/02
 +
 
 +
'''Hong Kong'''
 +
 
 +
'''Gao Haiyan v Keeneye Holdings Limited'''
 +
 
 +
Hong Kong Court of Appeal: Tang VP, Fok JA and Sakharani J: CACV No.79 of 2011: 2 December 2011:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Gao_Haiyan_v_Keeneye_Holdings_-_Court_of_Appeal]]
 +
 
 +
http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkca/2011/459.html
 +
 
 +
'''ARBITRATION: ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARD OBTAINED IN CHINA: SETTING ASIDE: CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY: WHETHER AWARD TAINTED BY APPARENT BIAS: MEDIATION CONDUCTED IN COURSE OF ARBITRATION: WAIVER'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/12/01
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''African Fertilizers and Chemicals NIG Ltd (Nigeria) v BD Shipsnavo GmbH & Co Reederei KG (The “Christian D”): English Commercial Court: Beatson J: [2011] EWHC 2452 (Comm): 29 September 2011:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/African_Fertilisers_v_BD_Shipsnavo,_the_Christian_D]]
 +
 
 +
'''ARBITRATION: JURISDICTION OF COURT: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT: SECTION 66 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996: ARTICLE 34(3) OF REGULATION 44/2001: WHETHER COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO MAKE PURELY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 66: WHETHER SECTION 66 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WAS A “JUDGMENT” FOR PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 34(3)'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/11/12
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''TTMI Sarl v Statoil ASA'''
 +
 
 +
'''Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court): Beatson J: [2011] EWHC 1150 (Comm): 9 May 2011:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/TTMI_v_Statoil]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''ARBITRATION: JURISDICTION: PROPER PARTY TO CHARTERPARTY: DISPONENT OWNER WRONGLY IDENTIFIED IN RECAP EMAILS: UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL: RECTIFICATION: CHARTERPARTY CREATED BY CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/11/11
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''Sovarex S.A. v. Romero Alvarez S.A.'''
 +
 
 +
'''English High Court; Hamblen J; [2011] EWHC 1661 (Comm), 29 June 2011:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Sovarex_v_Romero_Alvarez]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION: QUESTIONS OF FACT CAN BE DETERMINED IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 66 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/11/10
 +
 
 +
'''Hong Kong'''
 +
 
 +
'''Democratic Republic of Congo and others v FG Hemisphere Associates LLC'''
  
−
[[The Duden]]
+
'''Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal: Bokhary, Chan and Riberio PJJ, Mortimer and Sir Anthony Mason NPJJ: FACV No.5, 6 and 7 of 2010: 8 June 2011:
 +
[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Democratic_Republic_of_Congo_v_FG_Hemisphere_Associates]]'''
  
−
'''Singapore High Court: Andrew Ang, J.: 9 September 2008: [2008] SGHC 149
+
'''ARBITRATION: RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN AWARD OBTAINED AGAINST FOREIGN STATE: STATE IMMUNITY: WHETHER FOREIGN STATE CAN CLAIM ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT IN HONG KONG AFTER 1997: WHETHER EXCEPTION FOR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES: WAIVER OF IMMUNITY'''
−
Admiralty and Shipping: claim for cargo damage under bill of lading incorporating arbitration clause of charterparty but charterparty not identified: application for Stay of court proceedings in favour of arbitration: claim in Arbitration time barred under Hague-Visby Rules: Whether court should grant stay on condition that time bar be waived: singapore International Arbitration Act s 6(2): Principles underlying court's discretion to grant terms or conditions for stay: Whether justice of the case called for court to impose terms or conditions'''
 
  
  
 +
DMC/Arbn/11/09
  
−
[[New case]]
+
'''England'''
  
−
[[Royal & Sun Alliance v. BAE Systems]]
+
AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v. Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC
−
English High Court: Walker J: [2008] 743 (Comm): 15 April 2008
 
−
ARBITRATION: DISPUTE RESOLUTION AGREEMENT GIVING EITHER PARTY THE RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE COURT ON A QUESTION OF LAW ARISING OUT OF THE AWARD: WHETHER THIS SUFFICIENT TO DISPENSE WITH NEED TO OBTAIN LEAVE OF THE COURT UNDER THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996 S.69(2)(B)
 
  
−
[[Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation and Others v Yuri Privalov and Others under name of Premium Nafta Products Ltd (20th Defendant) & Others v. Fili Shipping Co Ltd (14th Claimant) & Others]]
+
'''English Court of Appeal (Civil Division); Rix, Wilson, & Stanley Burnton LJJ; [2011] EWCA Civ 647, 27 May 2011:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/AES_Ust-Kamenogorsk_Hydropower_Plant_LLP_v_Ust-Kamenogorsk_Hydropower_Plant_JSC]]'''
−
English House of Lords: Lords Hoffmann, Hope, Scott, Walker and Brown: [2007] UKHL 40: 17 October 2007
 
−
TIME CHARTERPARTIES: RESCISSION: EFFECT OF FRAUD AND BRIBERY ON VALIDITY OF JURISDICTION AND ARBITRATION CLAUSES: SHELLTIME 4 FORM, CLAUSE 41: DISPUTES "ARISING OUT OF" COMPARED TO DISPUTES "ARISING UNDER" THE CONTRACT: SEVERABILITY OF ARBITRATION CLAUSE: ARBITRATION ACT 1996, SECTION 7
 
  
−
[[ASM Shipping Ltd of India v. TTMI Ltd of England]]
+
'''INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION: BASIS FOR SERVICE OUT OF JURISDICTION: EFFECT OF CIVIL JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS ACT 1982: PARTICIPATION IN FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS UNDER PROTEST NOT SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION'''
−
English Court of Appeal: Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Rix and Longmore LJJ.: [2006] EWCA Civ 1341: 16 October 2006
 
−
ARBITRATION: AWARD: APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE AWARD ON GROUNDS OF APPARENT BIAS UNDER S.68 ARBITRATION ACT 1996: FAILURE OF APPLICATION: PERMISSION TO APPEAL UNDER S.68.4 REFUSED: WHETHER REFUSAL OF APPEAL A BREACH OF EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ART.6: WHETHER COURT OF APPEAL HAD RESIDUAL JURISDICTION TO PERMIT APPEAL
 
  
−
[[(1) Starlight Shipping Co (Marshall Islands) (2) Overseas Marine Enterprises Inc. (Liberia) v. (1) Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd, Hubei Branch (People’s Republic of China (2) International Economic & Trading Corporation, Wugang Group (People’s Republic of China)]]
 
−
English High Court, Commercial Court: Cooke J.: [2007] EWHC 1893 Civ: 1 August 2007
 
−
SHIPPING: CARGO CLAIM BROUGHT BY CARGO INSURERS IN CHINA IN BREACH OF ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN B/L: ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS: INTER-RELATIONSHIP OF S.37(1) SUPREME COURT ACT 1981 ("SCA") AND S.44 ARBITRATION ACT 1996: WHETHER REQUIREMENT OF URGENCY UNDER S.44(3) MADE OUT: WHETHER ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL "UNABLE FOR THE TIME BEING TO ACT EFFECTIVELY" UNDER S.44(5): WHETHER DISCRETIONARY ELEMENTS OF S.37 SCA MADE OUT
 
  
−
[["C" v "D"]]
+
DMC/Arbn/11/08
−
English Commercial Court: Cooke J: [2007] EWHC 1541 (Comm): 28 June 2007
 
−
INSURANCE: LONDON ARBITRATION CLAUSE: NEW YORK GOVERNING LAW CLAUSE: RIGHT TO CHALLENGE A PARTIAL AWARD MADE IN LONDON BY APPLICATION TO NEW YORK COURT
 
  
−
[[ASM Shipping Ltd of India v. Bruce Harris & Others (2007)]]
+
'''England'''
−
English High Court: Andrew Smith J: [2007] EWHC 1513 (Comm); 28 June 2007
 
−
ARBITRATORS: REMOVAL ON GROUNDS OF APPARENT BIAS UNDER s.24 ARBITRATION ACT 1996: ONE OF THREE ARBITRATORS WITHDREW ON GROUND OF APPARENT BIAS: APPLICATION TO REMOVE TWO REMAINING ARBITRATORS: WHETHER REMAINING ARBITRATORS ‘TAINTED’ BY APPARENT BIAS OF OTHER ARBITRATOR: LOSS OF RIGHT TO OBJECT UNDER s.73 ARBITRATION ACT 1996: MEANING OF ‘CONTINUES TO TAKE PART IN THE PROCEEDINGS'
 
  
−
[[West Tankers Inc v RAS Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA (The "Front Comor")]]
+
'''JSC BTA Bank v. Mukhtar Ablyazov & Ors'''
−
English House of Lords: Lords Nicholls, Steyn, Hoffmann, Rodger and Mance: [2007] UKHL 4: 21 February 2007
 
−
Available on BAILII @ http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/4.html
 
−
ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS: WHETHER ENGLISH COURT CAN ISSUE ORDER TO DISCONTINUE EC MEMBER STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS: CHARTERPARTY: LONDON ARBITRATION CLAUSE: INSURERS’ SUBROGATED RIGHTS: EC REGULATION 44/2001, REGS. 1(2)(D), 5(3): SUPREME COURT ACT 1981, S. 37(1)
 
  
−
[[Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation and Others v Yuri Privalov and Others]]
+
'''English High Court; Clarke J; [2011] EWHC 587 (Comm), 28 March 2011;[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/JCT_BTA_Bank_v_Mukhtar_Ablyazov_&_Ors]]'''
−
English Court of Appeal: Tuckey, Arden and Longmore LJ: [2007] EWCA CIV 20: 24 January 2007
 
−
TIME CHARTERPARTIES: SHELLTIME 4 FORM, CLAUSE 41: EFFECT OF FRAUD AND BRIBERY ON VALIDITY OF JURISDICTION AND ARBITRATION CLAUSES: "ARISING OUT OF" COMPARED TO "ARISING UNDER": ARBITRATION ACT 1996, SECTIONS 9 AND 72
 
  
−
[[Sea Trade Maritime Corporation v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd (The "Athena")]]
+
'''INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: STAY OF COURT PROCEEDINGS: AGREEMENT NULL AND VOID: SEPARABILITY: CASE MANAGEMENT GROUNDS'''
−
English Commercial Court: Langley J: [2006] EWHC 2530 (Comm): 18 October 2006
 
−
Available on BAILII @ http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2006/2530.html
 
−
INSURANCE: WAR RISKS: WAR RISKS MUUTAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION RULES CONTAINING ARBITRATION CLAUSE: INCORPORATION OF ARBITRATION CLAUSE INTO CONTRACT OF INSURANCE: BROKER AS AGENT FOR INSURED: WHETHER ENGLISH JURISDICTION CLAUSE EXCLUSIVE
 
  
−
[[Fiona Trust & Holdings Corporation and Others v Privalov and Others]]
 
−
English Commercial Court: Morison J: [2006] EWHC 2583 (Comm): 20 October 2006
 
−
Available on BAILII @ http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2006/2583.html
 
−
FRAUD: BRIBERY: CHARTERPARTIES: ARBITRATION CLAUSES: ARBITRATORS’ JURISDICTION: RESCISSION: RESTITUTION: VITIATION OF CONTRACTS AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS
 
  
−
[[Stena Bulk, as disponent owner of the M/T "Goldmar", Claimant v. Citgo Asphalt Refining Co., as Charterer, Respondent]]
 
−
United States of America: Society of Maritime Arbitrators of New York, Inc.: David W. Martowski, Chairman, Manfred W. Arnold and Jack Berg, arbitrators: Award Number 3902: November 22, 2005
 
−
WHETHER OWNERS, NOT A PARTY TO THE CHARTERPARTY BETWEEN DISPONENT OWNERS AND SUBCHARTERERS, COULD BE COMPELLED TO TAKE PART IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SUBCHARTER: WHETHER AN AFFILIATE OF THE SUBCHARTERERS, NOT A PARTY TO THE SUBCHARTER, COULD BRING A CLAIM IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS
 
  
−
[[The Owners of Cargo lately laden on board the "Yaoki" v. The Owners of the "Yaoki (The "Yaoki") ]]
+
DMC/Arbn/11/07
−
High Court of Hong Kong, Court of First Instance: Waung J: Admiralty Action No. 134 of 2005: [2006] HKCFI 411
 
−
ADMIRALTY: STAY OF PROCEEDING: BILL OF LADING INCORPORATES CHARTERPARTY TERMS INCLUDING ARBITRATION CLAUSE: CHARTERPARTY NOT IDENTIFIED IN BILL OF LADING: WHETHER THE BILL OF LADING REFERRED TO THE TIME CHARTERPARTY OR THE VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY
 
  
−
[[L J Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV (The “Alexia M”)]]
+
'''Hong Kong'''
−
English High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Toulson J: [2005] EWHC 1345 (QB): 17 June 2005
 
−
LONDON ARBITRATION CLAUSE: AMENDED CENTROCON FORM: APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR: ARBITRATOR’S JURISDICTION TO HEAR CLAIM: RELIEF FOR LATE COMMENCEMENT OF ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS: ARBITRATION ACT 1996, S.32 AND S.12(3)1: OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE OF NOMINATED ARBITRATOR: COMMUNICATION OF ACCEPTANCE: EFFECT OF TIME BAR
 
  
−
[[Stolt-Nielsen SA v. Animalfeeds International Corp.]]
+
'''Gao Haiyan v Keeneye Holdings Ltd'''
−
United States of America: District Court for the Southern District of New York: District Judge: Jed S. Rakoff: No. 06 Civ. 420 (JSR): 26 June 2006
 
−
Arbitration: class arbitration: Whether class arbitration permitted where charterparty arbitration clause silent on the point: manifest disregard of the law: federal maritime law: new york state law
 
  
−
[[Exfin Shipping (India) Ltd Mumbai v Tolani Shipping Co Ltd Mumbai]]
+
'''Hong Kong Court of First Instance: Reyes J in Chambers: HCCT No.41 of 2010: 12 April 2011: [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Gao_Haiyan_v_Keeneye_Holdings]]'''
−
English Commercial Court: Langley J: [2006] EWHC (Comm): 17 May 2006
 
−
APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE ARBITRATION AWARD: ARBITRATION ACT 1996, S. 67(1): JURISDICTION OF ARBITRATOR TO HEAR CLAIM: PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF ARBITRATION CLAUSE: MEANING OF "ANY DISPUTE": WHETHER REFUSAL TO PAY A SUM ADMITTED AS DUE IS A "DISPUTE"
 
  
−
[[Bernuth Lines Ltd v High Seas Shipping Ltd]]
+
'''ARBITRATION: ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARD OBTAINED IN CHINA: SETTING ASIDE: CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY: AWARD TAINTED BY ACTUAL OR APPARENT BIAS: MEDIATION CONDUCTED IN COURSE OF ARBITRATION: “MED-ARB”: ESTOPPEL'''
−
English High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court: Christopher Clarke J.: [2005] EWHC 3020 Comm: 21 December 2005
 
−
ARBITRATION: ARBITRATION ACT 1996, S.76(4): SERVICE BY ANY EFFECTIVE MEANS: WHETHER SERVICE BY EMAIL AN "EFFECTIVE MEANS": LONDON MARITIME ARBITRATORS ASSOCIATION’S SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE ("SCP"): CLAIM BELOW US$50,000 BUT COUNTERCLAIM ABOVE US$50,000:WHETHER SCP APPROPRIATE
 
  
−
[[Hackwood Ltd v Areen Design Services Ltd]]
 
−
English High Court: Technology & Construction Court; Mr Justice Field; [2005] EWHC 2322 (TCC); 31 October 2005
 
−
CONSTRUCTION Contract: what was the contract?: DID IT CONTAIN arbitration AGREEMENT: pERSON TAKING NO PART IN Arbitration PROCEEDINGS: RIGHTS UNDER S.72 ARBITRATION Act 1996: WHETHER PERSON DEBARRED FROM TAKING PART IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS IF APPLICATION FOR RELIEF UNDER S.72 FAILS
 
  
−
[[A.S.M Shipping Ltd of India v T.T.M.I Ltd of England]]
+
DMC/Arbn/11/06
−
English High Court: Commercial Division: Morison J.: [2005] EWHC 2238 (Comm): 19 October 2005
 
−
Charterparty; Arbitration; Arbitration Act 1996; possibility of bias: section 68; serious irregularity/SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE: SERIOUS allegations IN PREVIOUS CASE against witness REGARDING DISCLOSURE: ARBITRATOR’S KNOWLEDGE OF AND INVOLVEMENT IN PREVIOUS CASE; section 24; removal of arbitrator; WHETHER CLAIMANT HAD WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO OBJECT UNDER S.73
 
  
−
[[Surefire Systems Limited v. Guardian ECL Limited]]
+
'''England'''
−
English High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court; Mr Justice Jackson; [2005] EWHC 1860 (TCC); Case No: HT-05-183; 18 August 2005
 
−
Arbitration: construction: disputes over final account: Arbitration Act 1996: leave to appeal ("LTA"): section 69: questions of law: whether requirements of section met: extensions of time: section 70(3): section 80(5)
 
  
−
[[Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v. Impregilo SpA and others]]
+
'''B v S'''
−
English House of Lords: Lords Steyn, Hoffmann, Phillips MR, Scott and Rodger:
 
−
[2005] UKHL 43 on appeal from [2003] EWCA Civ 1159, itself on appeal from [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 22; [2002] EWHC 2435 (Comm)
 
−
Arbitration: arbitration Act 1996: currency of award: Award of interest: error of law: whether tribunal exceeded it powers: whether serious irregularity under section 68
 
  
−
[[Pan Liberty Navigation Co Ltd v World Link (HK) Resources Ltd (2005) BCCA 206]]
+
English High Court: Flaux J.: [2011] EWHC 691 (Comm): 23 March 2011:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/B_v_S]]
−
Canada: Court of Appeal of British Columbia: Court Docket: CA032234: Esson, Oppal and Madam Saunders, JJA: 8 April 2005
 
−
Model Law Article 8: LMAA Award (London): enforcement: arrest of bunkers : identity of respondent/award debtor: jurisdiction of arbitrator: public policy: Whether arbitrator’s jurisdiction exhausted
 
  
−
[[Thyssen Canada Limited v Mariana Maritime SA and another]]
+
'''COMMODITIES: FOSFA/GAFTA STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS: SCOTT V AVERY CLAUSE: WHETHER RIGHT TO INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF UNDER S.44 ARBITRATION ACT 1996 EXCLUDED'''
−
English High Court: Queen’s Bench Division: Commercial Court: Cooke J.: 23 February 2005: [2005] EWHC 219 (Comm)
 
−
ARBITRATION: APPEAL UNDER S.68 ARBITRATION ACT 1996: WHETHER AWARD OBTAINED BY FRAUD OR CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY: WHETHER RIGHT TO OBJECT LOST UNDER S.73(1): TAKING PART IN THE PROCEEDINGS: TIME LIMIT FOR APPEAL UNDER S.70(3): WHETHER GROUNDS FOR EXTENSION UNDER S.80(5)
 
  
−
[[Encyclopaedia Universalis S.A. v. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.,]]
 
−
United States of America: Second Circuit Court of Appeals: No. 04-0288-cv, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 5157: 31 March 2005
 
−
Arbitration: Enforcement: effect of Procedural irregularities: effect of tribunal exceeding its powers: Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention): Federal Arbitration Act
 
  
−
[[Vee Networks Limited v Econet Wireless International Ltd]]
+
DMC/Arbn/11/05
−
High Court (England), Queen’s Bench Division: Colman J.: [2004] EWHC 2909 (Comm): 14 December 2004
 
−
Arbitration: Arbitration Act 1996: section 7 – Separability of arbitration agreement: section 30 – competence of tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction: section 67 – challenging the award, substantive jurisdiction: interrelationship of sections 7 and 67
 
  
−
[[Cetelem SA v Roust Holdings Ltd]]
+
'''England'''
−
English High Court: Beatson J.: [2004] EWHC 3175 QB: 29 December 2004
 
−
Arbitration Act 1996 s.44: assistance of Court prior to commencement of arbitration: freezing orders: mandatory injunctions
 
  
−
[[World Trade Corporation Ltd v C Czarnikow Sugar Ltd]]
+
'''West Tankers Inc v Allianz SpA, Generali Assicurazione Generali SpA'''
−
English High Court, Commercial Division: Colman J.: 18 October 2004
+
−
ARBITRATION: AWARD: FAILURE TO DEAL WITH ISSUES OF FACT: WHETHER REMEDIABLE UNDER S.57 ARBITRATION ACT 1996: WHETHER A SERIOUS IRREGULARITY UNDER S. 68
+
'''English High Court: Field J.; [2011] EWHC 829 (Comm): 6 April 2011:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/West_Tankers_v_Allianz]]
  
−
[[Tame Shipping Ltd v Easy Navigation Ltd]]
+
'''ARBITRATION AWARDS: ENFORCEMENT: WHETHER A DECLARATORY AWARD MAY BE ENFORCED UNDER THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996, S.66'''
−
English High Court: Moore-Bick J.: 28 July 2004
 
−
ARBITRATION: LONDON MARITIME ARBITRATORS SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURES: REASONS PUBLISHED SEPARATELY FROM AWARD ON TERMS NOT TO BE USED IN CHALLENGING AWARD: SERIOUS IRREGULARITY UNDER S.68(2)(d) ARBITRATION ACT 1996: WHETHER COURT COULD EXAMINE REASONS
 
  
−
[[The "Hyundai Fortune"]]
 
−
Singapore Court of Appeal: Chao Hick Tin JA and Tan Lee Meng J: [2004] SGCA 41: 9 September 2004
 
−
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE IN BILL OF LADING REFERRED ALL CLAIMS TO THE SEOUL DISTRICT COURT IN KOREA: ACTION COMMENCED IN SINGAPORE BY CARGO OWNERS FOR DAMAGE TO CARGO: APPLICATION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN SINGAPORE: FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED WHERE THERE WAS EFFECTIVELY NO DEFENCE TO THE CLAIM
 
  
−
[[Prescott v. Northlake Christian School]]
+
DMC/ARBn/11/04
−
United States of America: US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals: Circuit Judge: Edith H. Jones, dissent by Circuit Judge Carl E. Stewart: 369 F.3d 491 4 May 2004
 
−
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT: MEDIATION/Arbitration CLAUSE: HANDWRITTEN AMENDMENT RESERVING PARTIES’ RIGHTS OF APPEAL: Scope of Judicial Review
 
  
−
[[Minermet SPA Milan v Luckyfield Shipping Corporation SA]]
+
'''United Kingdom'''
−
English Commercial Court: Cooke J.: 31 March 2004
 
−
SHIPPING: CHARTERPARTY: ARBITRATION CLAUSE: APPOINTMENT OF CLAIMANT’S ARBITRATOR: DEFENDANT’S ARBITRATOR TO BE APPOINTED WITHIN 14 DAYS: NO APPOINTMENT WITHIN THAT PERIOD: WHETHER CLAIMANT’S ARBITRATOR ENTITLED TO ACT AS SOLE ARBITRATOR
 
  
−
[[Incitec Ltd v Alkimos Shipping Corporation and Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd]]
+
'''Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v. The Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Dallah_Real_Estate_v_Government_of_Pakistan]]
−
Federal Court of Australia: Allsop J.: 3 June 2004
 
−
Dr A Bell, instructed by Middletons, for Alkimos
 
−
Mr G Nell, instructed by Sparke Helmore, for Hyundai
 
−
SHIPPING: CHARTERPARTY: CARGO CLAIMS: ARBITRATION CLAUSE: EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION AGREEMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CLAIMS IN FEDERAL COURT CONTRARY TO EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION AGREEMENT: SCOPE OF ARBITRATION CLAUSE: STAY OF PROCEEDINGS: FUTILITY: RISK OF DIFFERENT COURTS REACHING INCONSISTENT FINDINGS ON SAME ISSUES: INCONVENIENCE TO THIRD PARTIES
 
  
−
[[The Department of Economic Policy and Development of the City of Moscow and another v Bankers Trust Company and International Industrial Bank]]
+
UK Supreme Court: Lord Hope, Deputy President Lord Saville, Lord Mance, Lord Collins and Lord Clarke: [2010] UKSC 46: 3 November 2010'''
−
English Court of Appeal: Sir Andrew Morritt VC, Mance and Carnwath LJJ.: 25 March 2004
 
−
ARBITRATION: APPLICATIONS TO THE COURT: PRIVACY OF HEARINGS: CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 62.10: SUPERVISORY ROLE OF COURT: PUBLIC INTEREST: PUBLICATION OF JUDGMENTS
 
  
−
[[The "HYUNDAI FORTUNE"]]
+
'''ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARDS: CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION: WHETHER THIRD PARTY BOUND BY ARBITRATION AGREEMENT: COMPÉTENCE-COMPÉTENCE: SCOPE OF REVIEW BY ENFORCING COURT'''
−
Singapore High Court: Belinda Ang J: [2004] SGHC 45: 1 March 2004
 
−
CONFLICT OF LAWS: ADMIRALTY ACTION IN SINGAPORE: JURISDICTION CLAUSE IN BILL OF LADING: WHETHER TO STAY SINGAPORE ACTION FOR KOREA
 
  
−
[[Usinor Steel Corp. v. M/V Koningsborg]]
 
−
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: District Judge: Alvin K. Hellerstein.:No. 03 Civ. 4301; 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1615; 4 February 2004
 
−
arbitration: charter party: arbitration clause: Whether mandatory or permissive: federal policy: final order
 
  
−
[[Jurong Engineering Ltd v. Black & Veatch Singapore Pte Ltd]]
+
DMC/Arbn/11/03
−
Singapore High Court: Lai Kew Chai J: 26 November 2003: [2003] SGHC 292
 
−
ARBITRATION: CONSTRUCTION OF AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE: ARBITRATION CLAUSE MADE GENERAL REFERENCE TO RULES PROMULGATED BY THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE: ARBITRATION WAS A DOMESTIC ARBITRATION:- ARBITRATION COMMENCED UNDER SIAC DOMESTIC ARBITRATION RULES: SIAC DOMESTIC ARBITRATION RULES NOT IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF CONTRACT WHILST SIAC ARBITRATION RULES (WHICH GOVERNS INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION) IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF CONTRACT:- WHETHER SIAC DOMESTIC ARBITRATION RULES OR SIAC ARBITRATION RULES SHOULD APPLY
 
  
−
[[Hawk Shipping Ltd v Cron Navigation Ltd]]
+
'''English Court of Appeal'''
−
English Commercial Court: Toulson J.: 11 July 2003
 
−
ARBITRATION: TIMECHARTER: WRONGFUL WITHDRAWAL: CALCULATION OF LOSS: availability of alternative vessel
 
  
−
[[ABC Co v XYZ Co Ltd]]
+
'''National Navigation Co v Endesa Generacion SA (The “Wadi Sudr”)
−
Singapore High Court: Judith Prakash J: unreported: 8 May 2003)
+
'''English Court of Appeal: Waller, Carnwath and Moore-Bick LJJ: [2009] EWCA Civ 1397, [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 193: 17 December 2009[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/National_Navigation_v_Endesa]]'''
−
ARBITRATION: APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE AWARD UNDER ARTICLE 34 OF THE MODEL LAW: WHETHER APPLICANT MAY ADD NEW GROUNDS FOR SETTING ASIDE AFTER EXPIRY OF THREE MONTHS
 
  
−
[[Astra Oil Company, Inc. v. Rover Navigation, Ltd.]]
+
'''CONFLICT OF LAWS: BILL OF LADING:SPANISH COURT JUDGMENT THAT ARBITRATION CLAUSE NOT INCORPORATED INTO BILL OF LADING: WHETHER SPANISH COURT JUDGMENT FELL WITHIN ARBITRATION EXCEPTION IN ARTICLE 1(2)(D)OF EC REGULATION 44/2001: WHETHER RECOGNITION SHOULD BE REFUSED IN ENGLISH ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS: WHETHER CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY'''
−
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: Jacobs and Sotomayor, Judges: No. 02-9388: 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 19670 (2d Cir. September 2003) (not yet officially reported): 22 September 2003
 
−
Shipping: Charter party: Arbitration: When May A Non-Party Compel Arbitration?
 
  
−
[[Duferco International Steel Trading v. T. Klaveness Shipping A/S]]
 
−
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: Judges Feinberg, Cardamone, and Sack: 333 F.3d 383: June 24 2003
 
−
time charter: voyage charter: safe-berth warranty: indemnity Arbitration: Manifest disregard of the law: arbitration award: vacatur/set aside: vouching-in: collateral estoppel: plausible reading of the award: whether should also be ‘probable’
 
  
−
[[Welex AG v Rosa Maritime Limited]]
+
DMC/Arbn/11/02
−
English Court of Appeal: Brooke, May and Tuckey LJJ.: 3 July 2003
 
−
VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY: BILLS OF LADING ON CONGENBILL FORM: WHETHER CHARTERPARTY LAW AND JURISDICTION CLAUSE INCORPORATED: SPECIFIC WORDS OF INCORPORATION: WHETHER CHARTERPARTY EXISTED
 
  
−
[[Siboti K/S v BP France SA]]
+
'''Singapore'''
−
English Commercial Court: Gross J.: 11 June 2003
 
−
VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY: BILLS OF LADING TO INCORPORATE EXCLUSIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE OF CHARTERPARTY: ONLY GENERAL WORDS OF INCORPORATION IN BILLS OF LADING: CONSTRUCTION OF BILLS OF LADING: IRRELEVANCE OF CHARTERPARTY: ABSENCE OF CLEAR INTENTION TO INCORPORATE CHARTERPARTY DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE
 
  
−
[[BLCT (13096) Ltd v J Sainsbury Plc]]
+
'''Singapore High Court'''
−
English Court of Appeal: Lady Justice Arden, Lord Justice Longmore: [2003] EWCA Civ 884: 30 June 2003
 
−
Appeal from arbitration: Arbitration Act 1996, section 69: application for leave to appeal the award under s.69(5): no oral hearing under s.69(5): refusal to grant an oral hearing: leave to appeal refused under s.69(6): Court of Appeal's jurisdiction to give leave: Residual jurisdiction: right to a fair trial, Art. 6(1), European Convention on Human Rights: whether limitation on rights of appeal under Arbitration Act 1996 S.69(6) inconsistent with Art. 6: Whether Art. 6 required an oral hearing of appeal application
 
  
−
[[Internaut Shipping GmbH and Sphinx Navigation Ltd (Liberia) v Fercometal SARL (‘The Elikon’)]]
+
'''Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80:
−
English Court of Appeal: Lord Justices Mummery, Sedley, Rix: [2003] EWCA Civ. 812: 17 June 2003
+
Singapore High Court; Judgment delivered by Andrew Ang J, 15 March 2010; [2010] SGHC 80: [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Front_Row_Investments_v_Daimler_South_East_Asia]]'''
−
Arbitration: Arbitration Acts 1950, 1979: demurrage claim under a voyage charterparty: whether the registered or the disponent owner, or both, was a party to the charter: whether an arbitral reference by the "owner" was valid and subsisting
 
  
−
[[Glyphics Media, Inc. v. M.V. Conti Singapore, and others]]
+
Rajah & Tann LLP for the Plaintiff, Front Row
−
United States District Court, Southern District of New York: Hon. Naomi Reice Buchwald: Docket No. 02 Civ. 4398 (NRB): March 21, 2003.
 
−
BILL OF LADING: FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE: CARRIER: AGENCY
 
  
−
[[Associated Electric and Gas Insurance Services Limited v European Reinsurance Company of Zurich]]
+
Chelliah & Kiang for the Defendant, Daimler
−
English Privy Council: Lords Bingham, Hobhouse, Hoffmann and Millett and Sir Christopher Staughton: 29 January 2003
 
−
ARBITRATION: TWO ARBITRATIONS BETWEEN SAME PARTIES: CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE IN FIRST ARBITRATION AGREEMENT: WHETHER CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE PREVENTED REFERENCE TO FIRST ARBITRATION IN SECOND ARBITRATION
 
  
−
[[Newspeed International Limited v. Citus Trading Pte Ltd]]
+
'''ARBITRATION: RECOURSE AGAINST AWARD: WHETHER FAILURE TO CONSIDER A PARTY’S SUBMISSIONS ON AN ISSUE CONSTITUTES A BREACH OF NATURAL JUSTICE'''
−
High Court of Singapore: Woo Bih Li JC: 4 June 2001
 
−
ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN AWARD UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ACT (CAP. 143A): WHETHER RESPONDENT UNABLE TO PRESENT ITS CASE IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS
 
  
−
[[Aceros Prefabricados, S.A. v. TradeArbed, Inc.]]
 
−
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Miner, Calabresi and Cabranes; 282 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2002); February 13, 2002.
 
−
confirmation: arbitration: material alteration: arbitration clause: arbitration provision: motion to stay: burden of proof
 
  
−
[[Welex AG v. Rosa Maritime Limited ]]
+
DMC/Arbn/11/01
−
English Commercial Court: David Steel J.: April 2002
 
−
CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE: BILL OF LADING: CONGENBILL FORM: INCORPORATING ARBITRATION CLAUSE FROM RECAP TELEX: RECAP TELEX AS CHARTERPARTY
 
  
−
[[North Range Shipping Limited v Seatrans Shipping Corporation]]
+
'''Singapore'''
−
English Court of Appeal: Peter Gibson, Aldous, Tuckey LJJ: March 2002
 
−
ARBITRATION: SHIPPING: ARBITRATI0N ACT 1996: REFUSAL OF LEAVE TO APPEAL: GIVING REASONS: EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS: RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL: JURISDICTION TO HEAR APPEALS FROM REFUSAL TO GIVE LEAVE TO APPEAL: RESIDUAL JURISDICTION IN CASES OF MISCONDUCT OR UNFAIRNESS
 
  
−
[[PT Garuda Indonesia v Birgen Air]]
+
'''Singapore High Court'''
−
Singapore Court of Appeal: [2002] 1 SLR 393
 
−
WHETHER AGREEMENT TO CHANGE SEAT OF ARBITRATION: WHETHER INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ACT 1994 OR THE MODEL LAW APPLIES: SERVICE OUT OF JURISDICTION OF ORIGINATING PROCESS UNDER O.69A, R.4 OF THE RULES OF COURT
 
−
This case note has been supplied by Ang and Partners, the International Contributors for Singapore
 
  
−
[[Sonatrach Petroleum Co (BVI) v Ferrell International ltd]]
+
'''The “Engedi” [2010] SGHC 95: judgment delivered by Judith Prakash J, 25 March 2010: [2010] SGHC 95''' [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Engedi]]
−
English High Court: Commercial Court: Colman J: October 2001
 
−
ARBITRATION: SHIPPING: BACK-TO-BACK TIME CHARTERPARTIES: ARBITRATION AND JURISDICTION CLAUSES: FLOATING PROPER LAW CLAUSE: UNCERTAINTY: FORUM SELECTION: SEPARABILITY
 
  
−
[[BFC Aircraft Sales and Leasing Ltd v. The AGES Group]]
+
'''STAY OF IN REM PROCEEDINGS PENDING ARBITRATION IN LONDON: WHETHER STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OUGHT TO BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ACT WHERE CURRENT OWNER AND INTERVENER WAS NOT A PARTY TO ARBITRATION AGREEMENT'''
−
English High Court: Morison J.: December 2001
 
−
CONFLICT OF LAWS: JURISDICTION: FORUM NON CONVENIENS: AIRCRAFT BROKERS: CONSULTANT CONTRACT: CHOICE OF ENGLISH LAW: AIRCRAFT LEASES SUBJECT TO FLORIDA LAW: INTENTION OF THE PARTIES
 
  
−
[[Michael S Evryalos Maritime Ltd v. China Pacific Insurance Co Ltd - " The Michael S" ]]
 
−
English Commercial Court: Colman. J: December 2001
 
−
ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION: DAMAGE TO CARGO: BILLS OF LADING: CHARTERPARTY: WHETHER ARBITRATION CLAUSE INCORPORATED INTO BILLS OF LADING: CONFLICT BETWEEN CONGENBILL EDITIONS 1978 AND 1994: CONSTRUCTION: RECTIFICATION: EVIDENCE OF MUTUAL INTENTION IN WORDING OF BILLS: S.5(1)(A) CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT 1992: BILLS OF LADING ACT 1855: CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE ‘EVIDENCED BY B/L’: WHETHER CHANGE IN LAW INTENDED: LAW COMMISSION REPORT: LEDUC V WARD: POSITION OF INDORSEE: NOTICE
 
  
−
[[Cargo on Board MV'Delos' v. Delos Shipping]]
+
DMC/Arbn/10/5
−
English High Court: Langley J.: January 2001: [2001] 1 AER 763
 
−
VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY: ARBITRATION CLAUSE: INCORPORATION INTO BILLS OF LADING.
 
  
−
[[Louis Dreyfus Negoce SA v. Blystad Shipping & Trading Inc.]]
+
England
−
US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: June 2001
 
−
Case Note prepared in co-operation with the New York law firm of Healy & Baillie, LLP, which represented Blystad Shipping & Trading
 
−
NEW YORK ARBITRATION CLAUSE: BROAD AND NARROW  ARBITRATION CLAUSES: APPLICATION TO COLLATERAL AGREEMENTS: COLLATERAL AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR ENGLISH JURISDICTION: PRESUMPTION OF ARBITRABILITY UNDER BROAD CLAUSE WHERE CLAIM 'IMPLICATES' ISSUES OF CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION
 
  
−
[[PT Garuda Indonesia v. Birgen Air]]
+
'''Stellar Shipping Co LLC v Hudson Shipping Lines[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Stellar_Shipping_v_Hudson_Shipping_Lines]]'''
−
High Court of Singapore: Woo Bih Li, Judicial Commissioner: Unreported: September 2001
 
−
Case Note provided by Ang & Partners, International Contributors for Singapore
 
−
SEAT OF ARBITRATION – CURIAL LAW – WHETHER INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ACT 1994 OR THE MODEL LAW APPLIES – SERVICE OUT OF JURISDICTION OF ORIGINATING PROCESS UNDER O.69A, R.4 OF THE RULES OF  COURT – SUBSTITUTED SERVICE INSIDE SINGAPORE
 
  
−
[[Transfield Shipping Inc v. Sino-Add (Singapore) Pte Ltd]]
+
'''English Commercial Court: Hamblen J: [2010] EWHC 2985 (Comm): 18 November 2010'''
−
High Court of Singapore: Judith Prakash J: Unreported: 27 August 2001
+
 
−
Case note prepared by Ang & Partners, International Contributors for Singapore
+
Available on BAILII @ http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2010/2985.html
−
GENCON CHARTERPARTY - MAREVA INJUNCTION – WHETHER RISK OF DISSIPATION OF ASSETS – WHETHER MATERIAL NON-DISCLOSURE – WHETHER STAY OF ACTION IN FAVOUR OF ARBITRATION – WHETHER ARBITRATION CLAUSE WAS FOR GENERAL AVERAGE ONLY
+
 
 +
'''ARBITRATION: CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT CONTAINING GUARANTEE AND ARBITRATION CLAUSE/AGREEMENT: TRIPARTITE CONTRACT: SUBSTANTIVE JURISDICTION OF ARBITRATORS: SECTION 67 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996: WHETHER THERE WAS A BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN GUARANTORS AND GUARANTEED PARTY'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/10/4
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''Guangzhou Dockyards Co Ltd v ENE Aegiali I'''
 +
 
 +
'''English Commercial Court: Blair J: [2010] EWHC 2826 (Comm): 5 November 2010 [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Guangzhou_Dockyards_v_ENE_Aegiali_I]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''ARBITRATION: TRUE CONSTRUCTION OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT: WHETHER PARTIES COULD AGREE TO APPEALS TO THE COURT ON QUESTIONS OF FACT: WHETHER PARTIES HAD AGREED TO APPEALS TO THE COURT ON QUESTIONS OF FACT'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/10/3
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Isthisal Endustri AS v Sometal SAL'''
 +
 
 +
'''English Commercial Court: Christopher Clarke J: [2010] EWHC 29 (Comm): 18 January 2010'''
 +
[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Habas_Sinai_v_Sometal]]
 +
 
 +
Available on BAILII @ http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2010/29.html
 +
 
 +
'''ARBITRATION: INCORPORATION OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT/CLAUSE INTO CONTRACT: GENERAL REFERENCE TO PRIOR CONTRACTS BETWEEN SAME PARTIES WHICH INCLUDED ARBITRATION AGREEMENT/CLAUSE: WHETHER WORDS USED SUFFICIENT TO INCORPORATE PRIOR ARBITRATION AGREEMENT/CLAUSE'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/10/2
 +
 
 +
'''Hong Kong'''
 +
 
 +
'''Parakou Shipping Pte Ltd v Jinhui Shipping and Transportation Ltd and others[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Parakou_Shipping_v_Jinhui_Shipping]]  
 +
 
 +
Hong Kong Court of First Instance: Reyes J: HCAJ No.184 of 2009: 30 September 2010'''
 +
 
 +
http://www.hklii.org/hk/jud/eng/hkcfi/2010/HCAJ000184_2009-73172.html
 +
 
 +
'''STRIKING OUT: ABUSE OF PROCESS: COLLATERAL ATTACK ON PREVIOUS ARBITRATION DECISION: ‘RELATED PARTIES’'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/Arbn/10/1
 +
 
 +
'''The Netherlands'''
 +
 
 +
'''Mr Van Wassenaer Van Catwijck, also acting in his capacity as the representative of  Mr Saarberg and Mr Ariens (hereinafter called “the Arbitrators”) v Knowsley SK Limited, Manchester, United Kingdom (hereinafter called “KSK”)'''[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_Arbitrators_v._Knowsley_SK]
 +
 
 +
'''Dutch Supreme Court. D.H. Beukenhorst (chairman),  A.M.J. van Buchem-Spapens, J.C. van Oven, F.B.Bakels and W.D.H. Asser, 29 January 2010, Case number 09/00505''', published on www.rechtspraak.nl, LJN: BK2007
 +
 +
'''ARBITRATION: DUTCH LAW: OBLIGATIONS OF ARBITRATORS TOWARDS PARTIES IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS'''

Latest revision as of 12:16, 27 February 2023

DMC/Arbn/23/01

England

DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v Gemini Ocean Shipping Co Ltd (The “Newcastle Express”)

English Court of Appeal: Males, Birss and Snowden LJJ: [2022] EWCA Civ 1555: 24 November 2022:[[1]]

Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2022/1555.html

VOYAGE CHARTER: WHETHER VOYAGE CHARTER AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENT THEREIN CONCLUDED: WHETHER ARBITRATOR HAD SUBSTANTIVE JURISDICTION TO MAKE AWARD: WHETHER “SUBJECT SHIPPER/RECEIVERS APPROVAL” OF THE VESSEL PROVISION IN RECAP A CONDITION PRECEDENT AND SUBJECT TO “APPROVAL NOT TO BE UNREASONABLY WITHHELD” TERM IN INCORPORATED PROFORMA CHARTER: APPLICATION UNDER SECTIONS 67 OF ARBITRATION ACT 1996

DMC/Arbn/2022/04

England

ENEMALTA PLC v. THE STANDARD CLUB ASIA LIMITED [2021] EWHC 1215 (COMM)

English Commercial Court (QBD): Judge Pelling QC: 26 April 2021:[[2]

Judgment available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2021/551.html

WHETHER THE HIGH COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE VALIDITY OF A LETTER OF UNDERTAKING ISSUED BY A P&I CLUB - CONTAINING AN ENGLISH HIGH COURT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE - IN RESPECT OF THEIR OWNER MEMBERS’ ALLEGED LIABLITY FOR DAMAGE TO A SUBMARINE CABLE, IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE OWNERS HAD INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS IN SINGAPORE SEEKING TO ESTABLISH A LIMITATION FUND THERE IN RESPECT OF THE INCIDENT UNDER THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR MARITIME CLAIMS CONVENTION OF 1976


DMC/Arbn/22/03

England

ARI v WXJ

English Commercial Court: Foxton J: [2022] EWHC 1543 (Comm): 20 June 2022:[[3]]

Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2022/1543.html

ARBITRATION: LMAA TERMS: ARBITRATION COMMENCED BY FIRST PARTY GIVING NOTICE NAMING ITS APPOINTED ARBITRATOR (“GGG”): NOTICE GAVE SECOND PARTY 14 DAYS TO APPOINT AND GIVE NOTICE OF ITS ARBITRATOR FAILING WHICH GGG WOULD BE APPOINTED AS SOLE ARBITRATOR: SECOND PARTY RECEIVED CONFIRMATION OF WILLINGNESS OF ARBITRATOR (“JJJ”) TO ACCEPT APPOINTMENT, WITHOUT AGREEMENT ON TERMS OR REMUNERATION, AND GAVE NOTICE TO FIRST PARTY, WITH COPIES TO GGG AND JJJ, STATING JJJ HAD BEEN APPOINTED AS ITS ARBITRATOR: WHETHER APPOINTMENT OF JJJ AND NOTICE THEREOF WAS VALID TO CONSTITUTE TRIBUNAL WITHIN 14-DAY TIME LIMIT


DMC/Arbn/22/02

England

Ducat Maritime Ltd v Lavender Shipmanagement Inc (The “Majestic”)

English Commercial Court: Butcher J: [2022] EWHC 766 (Comm): 14 March 2022: [[4]]

Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2022/766.html

ARBITRATION: LMAA SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 2017: FINAL AWARD MADE IN OWNERS’ FAVOUR FOR USD37,831.83: ARBITRATOR SHOULD HAVE AWARDED USD28,277.91: ARBITRATOR ADDED VALUE OF CHARTERERS’ COUNTERCLAIM TO OWNERS’ CLAIM BY MISTAKE: ARBITRATOR TWICE REFUSED APPLICATIONS TO CORRECT AWARD UNDER SECTION 57 OF ARBITRATION ACT 1996: APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 68 OF ARBITRATION ACT 1996 TO SET ASIDE PART OF AWARD FOR SERIOUS IRREGULARITY


DMC/Arbn/22/01

England

NWA & Anor v NVF & Ors [2021] EWHC 2666 (Comm)

Between (1) NWA (2) FSY and (1) NVF (2) RWX (3) KLB

English High Court (Commercial Court): Calver J.: 8 October 2021:[[5]]

CONTRACTUAL TERM: DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE: ARBITRATION CLAUSE REQUIRING MEDIATION BEFORE ARBITRATION: MEDIATION NEVER TOOK PLACE: REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION: AWARD ISSUED CONFIRMING TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION: CHALLENGE TO AWARD UNDER SECTION 67(1)(a) ARBITRATION ACT 1996: WHETHER NON-COMPLIANCE WITH MEDIATION PROVISION VITIATED SUBSTANTIVE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL: WHETHER THAT NON-COMPLIANCE ONLY AFFECTED ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CLAIM


DMC/Arbn/21/08

Hong Kong

W v AW [2021] HKCFI 1707

High Court of Hong Kong: Justice Mimmie Chan: Date of Hearing: 22 March 2021: Date of Decision: 17 June 2021:[[6]]

Judgment available on HKLII @ https://www.hklii.hk/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2021/1707.html?stem=&synonyms=&query=title(%222021%20HKCFI%201707%22)

ARBITRATION: ISSUE ESTOPPEL: TWO ARBITRATIONS BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES ON THE SAME ISSUES WITH DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS: WHETHER SECOND AWARD SHOULD BE SET ASIDE: APPARENT BIAS: WHETHER SECURITY SHOULD BE ORDERED


DMC/Arbn/2021/07

Singapore

CAI v CAJ & CAK

Singapore High Court: S Mohan JC: [2021] SGHC 21: 29 January 2021:[[7]]

CHALLENGE TO ARBITRATION AWARD: EXTENSION OF TIME (EOT) DEFENCE: NATURAL JUSTICE: PROPER ARBITRATION PROCEDURES: MODEL LAW ARTICLE 18: ICC RULES ARTICLE 23(4): DOCTRINE OF APPROBATION AND REPROBATION


DMC/Arbn/21/06

England

Ulusoy Denizilik A.S. v COFCO Global Harvest (Zhangjiagang) Trading Co. Ltd (The "Ulusoy-11")

Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court): Mr Justice Bryan: [2020] EWHC 3645 (Comm): 28 August 2020:[[8]]

ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION: BILLS OF LADING EXPRESSLY INCORPORATING CHARTERPARTY LAW AND ARBITRATION CLAUSE: APPLICABLE LAW GOVERNING ISSUE OF INCORPORATION: IDENTITY OF GOVERNING CHARTERPARTY: WHETHER LAW AND ARBITRATION CLAUSE INCORPORATED INTO BILLS OF LADING: BILL OF LADING HOLDERS BRING CARGO CLAIM IN PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (“PRC”): WHETHER THIS A BREACH OF LONDON ARBITRATION CLAUSE: WHETHER OWNERS ENTITLED TO ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION: ROME I REGULATION (REGULATION (EC) NO 593/2008), ARTICLE 10(1), (2).


DMC/Arbn/21/05

England

Republic of Sierra Leone v SL Mining Limited [2021] EWHC 286 Comm, 15 February 2021

In the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court: Sir Michael Burton GBE, Sitting as Judge of the High Court:[[9]]

CONTRACTUAL DISPUTE BETWEEN PARTIES: MULTI-TIER DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVISION: PARTIES TO FILE FOR ARBITRATION IF NO AMICABLE SETTLEMENT REACHED WITHIN 3 MONTHS: NON-COMPLIANCE WITH MULTI-TIER DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVISION: WHETHER NON-COMPLIANCE VITIATED TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION: WHETHER NON-COMPLIANCE A MATTER OF ADMISSIBILITY: CHALLENGING AN AWARD UNDER SECTION 67 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996


DMC/Arbn/21/04

England

Lavender Shipmanagement Inc v Ibrahima Sory Affrètement Trading SA and Others (The “Majesty”)

English Commercial Court: Mr Justice Calver: [2020] EWHC 3462 (Comm) – 16 December 2020: [[10]]

LETTER OF UNDERTAKING: ARBITRATION AGREEMENT: APPLICATIONS UNDER S67 AND S69 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996


DMC/Arbn/21/03


Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd

United Kingdom Supreme Court: Lord Justices Reed, Hodge and Lloyd-Jones, Lady Justices Black and Arden: [2020] UKSC 48:[[11]]

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: IMPARTIALITY: LEGAL DUTY OF ARBITRATOR TO MAKE DISCLOSURE: MULTIPLE APPOINTMENTS IN DIFFERENT REFERENCES RELATING TO OVERLAPPING SUBJECT MATTER BUT INVOLVING A COMMON PARTY: WHETHER FAILURE TO DISCLOSE IS RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT OF APPARENT BIAS: WHETHER DUTY TO DISCLOSE OVERRIDES DUTY OF PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY: WHERE CONSENT TO DISCLOSURE MAY BE INFERRED: RECOGNITION OF SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MARITIME AND OTHER INDUSTRY SPECIFIC ARBITRATION


DMC/Arbn/21/02

Singapore_

Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd v Avant Garde Maritime Services (Private) Limited:

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore [2019] SGCA 33, 9 May 2019: Decision of the Court of Appeal (delivered by Judge of Appeal Judith Prakash): [[12]]

PARTY DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST IT: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING) SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES: TRIBUNAL PROCEEDED WITH ARBITRATION DESPITE MOU: FINAL AWARD AGAINST PARTY: WHETHER NON-PARTICIPATING PARTY ENTITLED TO SET ASIDE ARBITRAL AWARD ON THE GROUNDS THAT TRIBUNAL HAD NO JURISDICTION


DMC/Arbn/21/01

England

MVV Environment Devonport Ltd v NTO Shipping GMBH & Co KG MV Nortrader [2020] EWHC 1371 (Comm); Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court); Judge Pelling QC; 6 June 2020:[[13]]

CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION OF ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL: CLAIMANT NAMED AS SHIPPER IN BILL OF LADING INCORPORATING CHARTERPARTY ARBITRATION CLAUSE: WHETHER CLAIMANT WRONGLY NAMED AS SHIPPER IN BILL OF LADING PREPARED BY AGENT: WHETHER AGENT HAD EXPRESS OR IMPLIED ACTUAL AUTHORITY OR OSTENSIBLE AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR CLAIMANT: EFFECT OF CLAIMANT’S SILENCE


DMC/Arbn/19/02

England

Sea Master Shipping Inc v Arab Bank (Switzerland) Limited

English Commercial Court: Popplewell J.: 25 July 2018: [2018] EWHC 1902 (Comm):Sum[[14]]

CHALLENGE TO ARBITRATORS’ JURISDICTION UNDER S.67 ARBITRATION ACT 1996: WHETHER BILL OF LADING HOLDER BOUND BY ARBITRATION CLAUSE INCORPORATED INTO THE BILL OF LADING: WHETHER STATUS OF LAWFUL HOLDER UNDER S.2 OF CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT (1992) SUFFICIENT: WHETHER IN ADDITION, HOLDER MUST HAVE ASSUMED LIABILITIES UNDER S.3 OF THAT ACT


DMC/Arbn/19/01

England

Sonact Group Ltd v Premuda SpA (The “Four Island”)

English Commercial Court: Males J: [2018] EWHC 3820 (Comm): 12 December 2018: [[15]]

VOYAGE CHARTER: ASBATANKVOY FORM: DEMURRAGE & HEATING COSTS CLAIM: SETTLEMENT AGREED BY EMAIL WHICH DID NOT REFER TO ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IN CHARTER: WHETHER ARBITRATORS HAD JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE CLAIM FOR THE AGREED SETTLEMENT SUM: CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO SECTION 67 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996


DMC/Arbn/16/01

England

Shagang South-Asia Trading Co Ltd v Daewoo Logistics

English High Court: Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court); Mr Justice Hamblen; [2015] EWHC 194 (Comm); 5 February 2015: [[16]]

ARBITRATION: WHETHER THERE WERE CLEAR INDICATORS THAT THE CURIAL LAW WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE VENUE OF THE ARBITRATION: WHETHER THE ARBITRATOR WAS VALIDLY APPOINTED


DMC/Arbn/15/02

Singapore

Coal & Oil Co LLC v GHCL Ltd DMC/Arbn/15/01

England

Transgrain Shipping BV v Deiulemar Shipping SpA and Eleni Shipping Ltd (The “Eleni P”)

Commercial Court: Teare J: [2014] EWHC 4202 (Comm): 15 December 2014:[[17]]

CHARTERPARTY: PARTIALLY CONFLICTING ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS: BESPOKE ARBITRATION CLAUSE AND STANDARD BIMCO ARBITRATION CLAUSES: CHALLENGE TO TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 67 ARBITRATION ACT 1996: PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS: PROPER CONSTITUTION OF TRIBUNAL


DMC/Arbn/14/07

England

Viscous Global Investment Ltd v Palladium Navigation Corp (The “Quest”)

English Commercial Court: Males J: [2014] EWHC 2654 (Comm): 30 July 2014:[[18]]

ARBITRATION: BILLS OF LADING (“BLS”): P&I CLUB LETTER OF UNDERTAKING (“LOU”): WHETHER ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IN LOU REPLACED ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS IN BLS: ARBITRATION ACT 1996 SECTION 32 APPLICATION


DMC/Arbn/14/06

England

Emirates Trading Agency LLC v Prime Mineral Exports Private Limited

English High Court: Teare J.: [2014] EWHC 2104 (Comm): 1 July 2014:[[19]]

CONTRACT: DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE REQUIRING PARTIES TO TRY TO RESOLVE DISPUTES BY FRIENDLY DISCUSSION WITHIN A CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS BEFORE RESORTING TO ARBITRATION: WHETHER ARBITRATORS LACKED JURISDICTION BECAUSE THIS PROVISION NOT COMPLIED WITH: WHETHER PROVISION UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCERTAIN: WHETHER PROVISION HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH


DMC/Arbn/14/05

England

Caresse Navigation Ltd v Office National de l’Electricité (the "Channel Ranger"): [2013] EWHC 3081 (Comm): Males J.: 14 October 2013:[[20]]

BILL OF LADING: WHETHER WORDS OF INCORPORATION REFERRING TO ARBITRATION ARE SUFFICIENT TO INCORPORATE CHARTERPARTY JURISDICTION PROVISIONS


DMC/Arbn/14/04

England

Cottonex Anstalt v Patriot Spinning Mills Ltd [2014] EWHC 236 (Comm)

English High Court: Hamblen J.: 14 February 2014:[[21]]

SALE AND PURCHASE: WHETHER CONTRACT INCORPORATED ALL TERMS OF THE BY-LAWS AND RULES OF THE INTERNATIONAL COTTON ASSOCIATION OR ONLY THE ARBITRATION PROVISIONS: GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS ON APPEAL FROM AN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL WITH EXPERIENCE OF THE RELEVANT TRADE


DMC/Arbn/14/03

England

Beijing Jianlong Heavy Industry Group v Golden Ocean Group Ltd and Others

English Commercial Court: HHJ Mackie QC: [2013] EWHC 1063 (Comm): 1 May 2013: [[22]]

ARBITRATION: SECTION 67 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996: APPEAL AGAINST SUBSTANTIVE JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNALS: GUARANTEES ALLEGEDLY ILLEGAL AND UNENFORCEABLE UNDER CHINESE LAW: VALIDITY OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS: PUBLIC POLICY


DMC/Arbn/14/02

The Netherlands

Transport and Maritime Arbitration Rotterdam-Amsterdam ("Tamara") Arbitration

Anonymous, Procedural Order of a Tamara arbitration tribunal, 10 December 2012:[[23]]

ARBITRATION UNDER TAMARA RULES: WHAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE ARBITRATION SHOULD BE FAILING A CHOICE PREVIOUSLY MADE BY THE PARTIES


DMC/Arbn/14/01

England

AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v. Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC

Supreme Court; Lords Neuberger, Mance, Clarke, Sumption, Toulson SCJJ; [2013] UKSC 35, 12 June 2013:[[24]]

WHETHER POWER TO INJUNCT COURT PROCEEDINGS IS MERELY ANCILLARY TO CURRENT OR INTENDED ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS: WHETHER S.44 ARBITRATION ACT 1996 LIMITS THE COURT’S INJUNCTIVE POWERS UNDER S.37 SENIOR COURTS ACT 1981


DMC/Arbn/13/06

England

Fortress Value Recovery Fund I LLC (and others) v Blue Skye Special Opportunities Fund LLP (and others)

English Court of Appeal; Pill, Toulson, Tomlinson LJJ; [2013] EWCA Civ 367; 31 January 2013:[[25]]

ARBITRATION CLAUSE: THIRD PARTIES: CONTRACTS (RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES) ACT 1999, SS 8(1) & 8(2)


DMC/Arbn/13/05

Hong Kong

Grand Pacific Holdings Ltd and Pacific China Holdings Ltd (in liq) (No 1)

Hong Kong Court of Appeal: Tang VP, Kwan and Fok JJA: CACV No.136 of 2011, [2012] 4 HKLRD 1: 9 May 2012:[[26]]

http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkca/2012/200.html

ARBITRATION: APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE ARBITRAL AWARD: ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTS.34(2)(A)(II) AND (IV), UNCITRAL MODEL LAW: AWARD TO BE SET ASIDE ONLY IF VIOLATION SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS: DISCRETION OF COURT TO REFUSE TO SET ASIDE DESPITE VIOLATION


DMC/SandT/13/04

Australia

Dampskibsselskabet Norden A/S v Gladstone Civil Pty Ltd

Full Court, Federal Court of Australia: Mansfield, Rares and Buchanan JJ: [2013] FCFCA 107, 18 September 2013:[[27]]

ENFORCEMENT IN AUSTRALIA OF FOREIGN ARBITRATION AWARD UNDER VOYAGE CHARTER: WHETHER VOYAGE CHARTER A “SEA CARRIAGE DOCUMENT” FOR THE PURPOSES OF S.11 OF THE AUSTRALIAN CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT 1991: WHETHER ARBITRATION AWARD UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE NOT MADE IN AUSTRALIA


DMC/Arbn/13/03

Singapore

Maldives Airports Co Ltd & Anor v. GMR Male International Airport Pte Ltd, [2013] SGCA 16: Singapore Court of Appeal: Judgment delivered by Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA and Woo Bih Li J on 6 December 2012:[[28]]

Arbitration: Interim Order for Injunction under Section 12A(4) of International Arbitration Act ("IAA"): Meaning of “asset” under Section 12A(4) IAA: Preservation of contractual rights and choses in action as “assets” under Section 12A(4) of IAA


DMC/Arbn/13/02

Singapore

Astro Nusantara International BV and others v. PT Ayunda Prima Mitra and others [2012] SGHC 157: Singapore High Court: Judgment delivered by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J on 22 October 2012: [[29]]

ARBITRATION: INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRAL AWARD MADE IN SAME TERRITORY AS FORUM IN WHICH RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT SOUGHT: PARTY NOT ENTITLED TO CHALLENGE JURISDICTION OF ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AT SETTING-ASIDE OR ENFORCEMENT STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: PARTY WHO FAILS TO CHALLENGE AWARD ON JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO ART. 16 OF MODEL LAW DEEMED TO ACCEPT FINALITY OF AWARD ON JURISDICTION


DMC/Arbn/13/01

England

Chantiers de L’Atlantique SA v Gaztransport & Technigaz SAS

English High Court (Commercial Court): Flaux J: [2011] EWHC 3383 (Comm): 20 December 2011: [[30]]

ARBITRATION: SETTING ASIDE ARBITRAL AWARD ON GROUND OF FRAUD: EXTENSION OF TIME GRANTED, GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ALLEGATIONS: FRAUD BY TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE OF WINNING PARTY IN EVIDENCE TO ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL: DELIBERATE CONCEALMENT OF TECHNICAL TEST RESUTLS: LACK OF CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN NON-DISCLOSURE AND DECISION OF TRIBUNAL


DMC/Arbn/12/03

Singapore

Singapore High Court

Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd v. Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2012] SGHC 157 : Judgment delivered by Woo Bih Li J on 31 July 2012: [[31]]

ARBITRATION: WAIVER OF RIGHT OF RECOURSE UNDER ICC RULES OF ARBITRATION (1998): EXCLUSION OF APPEAL ON QUESTION OF LAW ARISING OUT OF ARBITRATION AWARD PURSUANT TO SECTION 49(2) ARBITRATION ACT


DMC/Arbn/12/02

Hong Kong

Gao Haiyan v Keeneye Holdings Limited

Hong Kong Court of Appeal: Tang VP, Fok JA and Sakharani J: CACV No.79 of 2011: 2 December 2011:[[32]]

http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkca/2011/459.html

ARBITRATION: ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARD OBTAINED IN CHINA: SETTING ASIDE: CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY: WHETHER AWARD TAINTED BY APPARENT BIAS: MEDIATION CONDUCTED IN COURSE OF ARBITRATION: WAIVER


DMC/Arbn/12/01

England

African Fertilizers and Chemicals NIG Ltd (Nigeria) v BD Shipsnavo GmbH & Co Reederei KG (The “Christian D”): English Commercial Court: Beatson J: [2011] EWHC 2452 (Comm): 29 September 2011:[[33]]

ARBITRATION: JURISDICTION OF COURT: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT: SECTION 66 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996: ARTICLE 34(3) OF REGULATION 44/2001: WHETHER COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO MAKE PURELY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 66: WHETHER SECTION 66 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WAS A “JUDGMENT” FOR PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 34(3)


DMC/Arbn/11/12

England

TTMI Sarl v Statoil ASA

Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court): Beatson J: [2011] EWHC 1150 (Comm): 9 May 2011:[[34]]

ARBITRATION: JURISDICTION: PROPER PARTY TO CHARTERPARTY: DISPONENT OWNER WRONGLY IDENTIFIED IN RECAP EMAILS: UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL: RECTIFICATION: CHARTERPARTY CREATED BY CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES


DMC/Arbn/11/11

England

Sovarex S.A. v. Romero Alvarez S.A.

English High Court; Hamblen J; [2011] EWHC 1661 (Comm), 29 June 2011:[[35]]

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION: QUESTIONS OF FACT CAN BE DETERMINED IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 66 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996


DMC/Arbn/11/10

Hong Kong

Democratic Republic of Congo and others v FG Hemisphere Associates LLC

Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal: Bokhary, Chan and Riberio PJJ, Mortimer and Sir Anthony Mason NPJJ: FACV No.5, 6 and 7 of 2010: 8 June 2011: [[36]]

ARBITRATION: RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN AWARD OBTAINED AGAINST FOREIGN STATE: STATE IMMUNITY: WHETHER FOREIGN STATE CAN CLAIM ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT IN HONG KONG AFTER 1997: WHETHER EXCEPTION FOR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES: WAIVER OF IMMUNITY


DMC/Arbn/11/09

England

AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v. Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC

English Court of Appeal (Civil Division); Rix, Wilson, & Stanley Burnton LJJ; [2011] EWCA Civ 647, 27 May 2011:[[37]]

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION: BASIS FOR SERVICE OUT OF JURISDICTION: EFFECT OF CIVIL JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS ACT 1982: PARTICIPATION IN FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS UNDER PROTEST NOT SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION


DMC/Arbn/11/08

England

JSC BTA Bank v. Mukhtar Ablyazov & Ors

English High Court; Clarke J; [2011] EWHC 587 (Comm), 28 March 2011;[[38]]

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: STAY OF COURT PROCEEDINGS: AGREEMENT NULL AND VOID: SEPARABILITY: CASE MANAGEMENT GROUNDS


DMC/Arbn/11/07

Hong Kong

Gao Haiyan v Keeneye Holdings Ltd

Hong Kong Court of First Instance: Reyes J in Chambers: HCCT No.41 of 2010: 12 April 2011: [[39]]

ARBITRATION: ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARD OBTAINED IN CHINA: SETTING ASIDE: CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY: AWARD TAINTED BY ACTUAL OR APPARENT BIAS: MEDIATION CONDUCTED IN COURSE OF ARBITRATION: “MED-ARB”: ESTOPPEL


DMC/Arbn/11/06

England

B v S

English High Court: Flaux J.: [2011] EWHC 691 (Comm): 23 March 2011:[[40]]

COMMODITIES: FOSFA/GAFTA STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS: SCOTT V AVERY CLAUSE: WHETHER RIGHT TO INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF UNDER S.44 ARBITRATION ACT 1996 EXCLUDED


DMC/Arbn/11/05

England

West Tankers Inc v Allianz SpA, Generali Assicurazione Generali SpA

English High Court: Field J.; [2011] EWHC 829 (Comm): 6 April 2011:[[41]]

ARBITRATION AWARDS: ENFORCEMENT: WHETHER A DECLARATORY AWARD MAY BE ENFORCED UNDER THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996, S.66


DMC/ARBn/11/04

United Kingdom

Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v. The Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan:[[42]]

UK Supreme Court: Lord Hope, Deputy President Lord Saville, Lord Mance, Lord Collins and Lord Clarke: [2010] UKSC 46: 3 November 2010

ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARDS: CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION: WHETHER THIRD PARTY BOUND BY ARBITRATION AGREEMENT: COMPÉTENCE-COMPÉTENCE: SCOPE OF REVIEW BY ENFORCING COURT


DMC/Arbn/11/03

English Court of Appeal

National Navigation Co v Endesa Generacion SA (The “Wadi Sudr”) English Court of Appeal: Waller, Carnwath and Moore-Bick LJJ: [2009] EWCA Civ 1397, [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 193: 17 December 2009[[43]]

CONFLICT OF LAWS: BILL OF LADING:SPANISH COURT JUDGMENT THAT ARBITRATION CLAUSE NOT INCORPORATED INTO BILL OF LADING: WHETHER SPANISH COURT JUDGMENT FELL WITHIN ARBITRATION EXCEPTION IN ARTICLE 1(2)(D)OF EC REGULATION 44/2001: WHETHER RECOGNITION SHOULD BE REFUSED IN ENGLISH ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS: WHETHER CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY


DMC/Arbn/11/02

Singapore

Singapore High Court

Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80: Singapore High Court; Judgment delivered by Andrew Ang J, 15 March 2010; [2010] SGHC 80: [[44]]

Rajah & Tann LLP for the Plaintiff, Front Row

Chelliah & Kiang for the Defendant, Daimler

ARBITRATION: RECOURSE AGAINST AWARD: WHETHER FAILURE TO CONSIDER A PARTY’S SUBMISSIONS ON AN ISSUE CONSTITUTES A BREACH OF NATURAL JUSTICE


DMC/Arbn/11/01

Singapore

Singapore High Court

The “Engedi” [2010] SGHC 95: judgment delivered by Judith Prakash J, 25 March 2010: [2010] SGHC 95 [[45]]

STAY OF IN REM PROCEEDINGS PENDING ARBITRATION IN LONDON: WHETHER STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OUGHT TO BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ACT WHERE CURRENT OWNER AND INTERVENER WAS NOT A PARTY TO ARBITRATION AGREEMENT


DMC/Arbn/10/5

England

Stellar Shipping Co LLC v Hudson Shipping Lines[[46]]

English Commercial Court: Hamblen J: [2010] EWHC 2985 (Comm): 18 November 2010

Available on BAILII @ http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2010/2985.html

ARBITRATION: CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT CONTAINING GUARANTEE AND ARBITRATION CLAUSE/AGREEMENT: TRIPARTITE CONTRACT: SUBSTANTIVE JURISDICTION OF ARBITRATORS: SECTION 67 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996: WHETHER THERE WAS A BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN GUARANTORS AND GUARANTEED PARTY


DMC/Arbn/10/4

England

Guangzhou Dockyards Co Ltd v ENE Aegiali I

English Commercial Court: Blair J: [2010] EWHC 2826 (Comm): 5 November 2010 [[47]]

ARBITRATION: TRUE CONSTRUCTION OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT: WHETHER PARTIES COULD AGREE TO APPEALS TO THE COURT ON QUESTIONS OF FACT: WHETHER PARTIES HAD AGREED TO APPEALS TO THE COURT ON QUESTIONS OF FACT


DMC/Arbn/10/3

England

Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Isthisal Endustri AS v Sometal SAL

English Commercial Court: Christopher Clarke J: [2010] EWHC 29 (Comm): 18 January 2010 [[48]]

Available on BAILII @ http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2010/29.html

ARBITRATION: INCORPORATION OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT/CLAUSE INTO CONTRACT: GENERAL REFERENCE TO PRIOR CONTRACTS BETWEEN SAME PARTIES WHICH INCLUDED ARBITRATION AGREEMENT/CLAUSE: WHETHER WORDS USED SUFFICIENT TO INCORPORATE PRIOR ARBITRATION AGREEMENT/CLAUSE


DMC/Arbn/10/2

Hong Kong

Parakou Shipping Pte Ltd v Jinhui Shipping and Transportation Ltd and others[[49]]

Hong Kong Court of First Instance: Reyes J: HCAJ No.184 of 2009: 30 September 2010

http://www.hklii.org/hk/jud/eng/hkcfi/2010/HCAJ000184_2009-73172.html

STRIKING OUT: ABUSE OF PROCESS: COLLATERAL ATTACK ON PREVIOUS ARBITRATION DECISION: ‘RELATED PARTIES’


DMC/Arbn/10/1

The Netherlands

Mr Van Wassenaer Van Catwijck, also acting in his capacity as the representative of Mr Saarberg and Mr Ariens (hereinafter called “the Arbitrators”) v Knowsley SK Limited, Manchester, United Kingdom (hereinafter called “KSK”)[50]

Dutch Supreme Court. D.H. Beukenhorst (chairman), A.M.J. van Buchem-Spapens, J.C. van Oven, F.B.Bakels and W.D.H. Asser, 29 January 2010, Case number 09/00505, published on www.rechtspraak.nl, LJN: BK2007

ARBITRATION: DUTCH LAW: OBLIGATIONS OF ARBITRATORS TOWARDS PARTIES IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

Retrieved from ‘https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php?title=Arbitration_Issues&oldid=1960’