|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | DMC/SandT/10/16 | + | DMC/Arbn/10/1 |
| | | | |
| | '''The Netherlands''' | | '''The Netherlands''' |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
| | | | |
| | '''ARBITRATION: DUTCH LAW: OBLIGATIONS OF ARBITRATORS TOWARDS PARTIES IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS''' | | '''ARBITRATION: DUTCH LAW: OBLIGATIONS OF ARBITRATORS TOWARDS PARTIES IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS''' |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | DMC/SandT/09/01
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''Singapore'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[The Duden]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''Singapore High Court: Andrew Ang, J.: 9 September 2008: [2008] SGHC 149
| |
| − | 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'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[New case]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Royal & Sun Alliance v. BAE Systems]]
| |
| − | 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 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]]
| |
| − | 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"]]
| |
| − | 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)]]
| |
| − | 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")]]
| |
| − | 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 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")]]
| |
| − | 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") ]]
| |
| − | 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”)]]
| |
| − | 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.]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Tame Shipping Ltd v Easy Navigation Ltd]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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"]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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 Commercial Court: Toulson J.: 11 July 2003
| |
| − | ARBITRATION: TIMECHARTER: WRONGFUL WITHDRAWAL: CALCULATION OF LOSS: availability of alternative vessel
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[ABC Co v XYZ Co Ltd]]
| |
| − | Singapore High Court: Judith Prakash J: unreported: 8 May 2003)
| |
| − | 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.]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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’)]]
| |
| − | English Court of Appeal: Lord Justices Mummery, Sedley, Rix: [2003] EWCA Civ. 812: 17 June 2003
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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 ]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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 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]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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.]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | 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]]
| |
| − | High Court of Singapore: Judith Prakash J: Unreported: 27 August 2001
| |
| − | Case note prepared by Ang & Partners, International Contributors for Singapore
| |
| − | 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
| |
