Arbitration Issues: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(54 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
DMC/Arbn/24/02 | |||
'''England''' | |||
'''The London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v Trico Maritime (Pvt) Ltd & Others (The “X-Press Pearl”)''' | |||
'''English Commercial Court: Mr Justice Bright: [2024] EWHC 884 (Comm): 23 April [[The London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v Trico Maritime (Pvt) Ltd & Others (The “X-Press Pearl”)|2024]]''' | |||
Judgment Available on BAILII @ <nowiki>https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2024/884.html</nowiki> | |||
'''P&I INSURANCE CONTRACT: ANTISUIT INJUNCTION: DECLARATORY RELIEF: WHETHER CARGO INTERESTS PURSUING A CLAIM AGAINST AN INSURER ARE BOUND BY THE TERMS, INCLUDING THE ENGLISH LAW AND LONDON ARBITRATION CLAUSE, OF THE CONTRACT: WHETHER INSURER ENTITLED TO INJUNCTION AND RELIEF FOR CARGO INTERESTS’ BREACH BY PURSUING FOREIGN COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST INSURER''' | |||
DMC/Arbn/24/01'''England''' | |||
'''Barclays Bank plc v VEB.RF''' | |||
'''English Commercial Court: John Kimball KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court): [2024] EWHC 1074 (Comm): 10 May 2024: [For the case note, click here''' [[Barclays Bank v VEB.RF]]''']''' | |||
Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2024/1074.html | |||
'''ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST A SANCTIONED PARTY: WHETHER ARBITRATION AGREEMENT FRUSTRATED BY SANCTIONS: WHETHER CLAIMANT’S DELAY IN SEEKING INJUNCTIONS JUSTIFIED''' | |||
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''' | |||
'''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 | DMC/Arbn/13/06 | ||
Line 5: | Line 309: | ||
'''Fortress Value Recovery Fund I LLC (and others) v Blue Skye Special Opportunities Fund LLP (and others)''' | '''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:[[ | '''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)''' | '''ARBITRATION CLAUSE: THIRD PARTIES: CONTRACTS (RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES) ACT 1999, SS 8(1) & 8(2)''' | ||
Line 16: | Line 320: | ||
'''Grand Pacific Holdings Ltd and Pacific China Holdings Ltd (in liq) (No 1)''' | '''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:[[ | '''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 | http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkca/2012/200.html | ||
Line 30: | Line 334: | ||
'''Dampskibsselskabet Norden A/S v Gladstone Civil Pty Ltd''' | '''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:[[ | '''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]]''' | ||
'''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''' | '''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''' | ||
Line 39: | Line 343: | ||
'''Singapore''' | '''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:[[ | '''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''' | '''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''' | ||
Line 49: | Line 353: | ||
'''Singapore''' | '''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: [[ | '''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''' | '''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''' | ||
Line 60: | Line 364: | ||
'''Chantiers de L’Atlantique SA v Gaztransport & Technigaz SAS''' | '''Chantiers de L’Atlantique SA v Gaztransport & Technigaz SAS''' | ||
'''English High Court (Commercial Court): Flaux J: [2011] EWHC 3383 (Comm): 20 December 2011: [[ | '''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''' | '''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''' | ||
Line 71: | Line 375: | ||
'''Singapore High Court''' | '''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: [[ | '''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''' | '''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''' | ||
Line 83: | Line 387: | ||
'''Gao Haiyan v Keeneye Holdings Limited''' | '''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:[[ | 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 | http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkca/2011/459.html | ||
Line 94: | Line 398: | ||
'''England''' | '''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:[[ | '''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)''' | '''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)''' | ||
Line 105: | Line 409: | ||
'''TTMI Sarl v Statoil ASA''' | '''TTMI Sarl v Statoil ASA''' | ||
'''Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court): Beatson J: [2011] EWHC 1150 (Comm): 9 May 2011:[[ | '''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''' | '''ARBITRATION: JURISDICTION: PROPER PARTY TO CHARTERPARTY: DISPONENT OWNER WRONGLY IDENTIFIED IN RECAP EMAILS: UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL: RECTIFICATION: CHARTERPARTY CREATED BY CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES''' | ||
Line 116: | Line 420: | ||
'''Sovarex S.A. v. Romero Alvarez S.A.''' | '''Sovarex S.A. v. Romero Alvarez S.A.''' | ||
'''English High Court; Hamblen J; [2011] EWHC 1661 (Comm), 29 June 2011:[[ | '''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''' | '''INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION: QUESTIONS OF FACT CAN BE DETERMINED IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 66 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996''' | ||
Line 128: | Line 432: | ||
'''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: | '''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]]''' | ||
'''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''' | '''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''' | ||
Line 139: | Line 443: | ||
AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v. Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC | 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:[[ | '''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]]''' | ||
'''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''' | '''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''' | ||
Line 150: | Line 454: | ||
'''JSC BTA Bank v. Mukhtar Ablyazov & Ors''' | '''JSC BTA Bank v. Mukhtar Ablyazov & Ors''' | ||
'''English High Court; Clarke J; [2011] EWHC 587 (Comm), 28 March 2011;[[ | '''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]]''' | ||
'''INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: STAY OF COURT PROCEEDINGS: AGREEMENT NULL AND VOID: SEPARABILITY: CASE MANAGEMENT GROUNDS''' | '''INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: STAY OF COURT PROCEEDINGS: AGREEMENT NULL AND VOID: SEPARABILITY: CASE MANAGEMENT GROUNDS''' | ||
Line 162: | Line 466: | ||
'''Gao Haiyan v Keeneye Holdings Ltd''' | '''Gao Haiyan v Keeneye Holdings Ltd''' | ||
'''Hong Kong Court of First Instance: Reyes J in Chambers: HCCT No.41 of 2010: 12 April 2011: [[ | '''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]]''' | ||
'''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''' | '''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''' | ||
Line 173: | Line 477: | ||
'''B v S''' | '''B v S''' | ||
English High Court: Flaux J.: [2011] EWHC 691 (Comm): 23 March 2011:[[ | English High Court: Flaux J.: [2011] EWHC 691 (Comm): 23 March 2011:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/B_v_S]] | ||
'''COMMODITIES: FOSFA/GAFTA STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS: SCOTT V AVERY CLAUSE: WHETHER RIGHT TO INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF UNDER S.44 ARBITRATION ACT 1996 EXCLUDED''' | '''COMMODITIES: FOSFA/GAFTA STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS: SCOTT V AVERY CLAUSE: WHETHER RIGHT TO INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF UNDER S.44 ARBITRATION ACT 1996 EXCLUDED''' | ||
Line 184: | Line 488: | ||
'''West Tankers Inc v Allianz SpA, Generali Assicurazione Generali SpA''' | '''West Tankers Inc v Allianz SpA, Generali Assicurazione Generali SpA''' | ||
'''English High Court: Field J.; [2011] EWHC 829 (Comm): 6 April 2011:[[ | '''English High Court: Field J.; [2011] EWHC 829 (Comm): 6 April 2011:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/West_Tankers_v_Allianz]]''' | ||
'''ARBITRATION AWARDS: ENFORCEMENT: WHETHER A DECLARATORY AWARD MAY BE ENFORCED UNDER THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996, S.66''' | '''ARBITRATION AWARDS: ENFORCEMENT: WHETHER A DECLARATORY AWARD MAY BE ENFORCED UNDER THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996, S.66''' | ||
Line 193: | Line 497: | ||
'''United Kingdom''' | '''United Kingdom''' | ||
'''Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v. The Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan:[[ | '''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]]''' | ||
UK Supreme Court: Lord Hope, Deputy President Lord Saville, Lord Mance, Lord Collins and Lord Clarke: [2010] UKSC 46: 3 November 2010''' | UK Supreme Court: Lord Hope, Deputy President Lord Saville, Lord Mance, Lord Collins and Lord Clarke: [2010] UKSC 46: 3 November 2010''' | ||
Line 205: | Line 509: | ||
'''National Navigation Co v Endesa Generacion SA (The “Wadi Sudr”) | '''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[[ | '''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]]''' | ||
'''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''' | '''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''' | ||
Line 217: | Line 521: | ||
'''Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80: | '''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: [[ | 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]]''' | ||
Rajah & Tann LLP for the Plaintiff, Front Row | Rajah & Tann LLP for the Plaintiff, Front Row | ||
Line 232: | Line 536: | ||
'''Singapore High Court''' | '''Singapore High Court''' | ||
'''The “Engedi” [2010] SGHC 95: judgment delivered by Judith Prakash J, 25 March 2010: [2010] SGHC 95''' [[ | '''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]] | ||
'''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''' | '''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''' | ||
Line 241: | Line 545: | ||
England | England | ||
'''Stellar Shipping Co LLC v Hudson Shipping Lines[[ | '''Stellar Shipping Co LLC v Hudson Shipping Lines[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Stellar_Shipping_v_Hudson_Shipping_Lines]]''' | ||
'''English Commercial Court: Hamblen J: [2010] EWHC 2985 (Comm): 18 November 2010''' | '''English Commercial Court: Hamblen J: [2010] EWHC 2985 (Comm): 18 November 2010''' | ||
Line 256: | Line 560: | ||
'''Guangzhou Dockyards Co Ltd v ENE Aegiali I''' | '''Guangzhou Dockyards Co Ltd v ENE Aegiali I''' | ||
'''English Commercial Court: Blair J: [2010] EWHC 2826 (Comm): 5 November 2010 [[ | '''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''' | '''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''' | ||
Line 268: | Line 572: | ||
'''English Commercial Court: Christopher Clarke J: [2010] EWHC 29 (Comm): 18 January 2010''' | '''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 | Available on BAILII @ http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2010/29.html | ||
Line 279: | Line 583: | ||
'''Hong Kong''' | '''Hong Kong''' | ||
'''Parakou Shipping Pte Ltd v Jinhui Shipping and Transportation Ltd and others[[ | '''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''' | Hong Kong Court of First Instance: Reyes J: HCAJ No.184 of 2009: 30 September 2010''' | ||
Line 292: | Line 596: | ||
'''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”)'''[ | '''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 | '''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''' | '''ARBITRATION: DUTCH LAW: OBLIGATIONS OF ARBITRATORS TOWARDS PARTIES IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS''' |
Latest revision as of 12:31, 27 September 2024
DMC/Arbn/24/02
England
The London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v Trico Maritime (Pvt) Ltd & Others (The “X-Press Pearl”)
English Commercial Court: Mr Justice Bright: [2024] EWHC 884 (Comm): 23 April 2024
Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2024/884.html
P&I INSURANCE CONTRACT: ANTISUIT INJUNCTION: DECLARATORY RELIEF: WHETHER CARGO INTERESTS PURSUING A CLAIM AGAINST AN INSURER ARE BOUND BY THE TERMS, INCLUDING THE ENGLISH LAW AND LONDON ARBITRATION CLAUSE, OF THE CONTRACT: WHETHER INSURER ENTITLED TO INJUNCTION AND RELIEF FOR CARGO INTERESTS’ BREACH BY PURSUING FOREIGN COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST INSURER
DMC/Arbn/24/01England
Barclays Bank plc v VEB.RF
English Commercial Court: John Kimball KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court): [2024] EWHC 1074 (Comm): 10 May 2024: [For the case note, click here Barclays Bank v VEB.RF]
Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2024/1074.html
ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST A SANCTIONED PARTY: WHETHER ARBITRATION AGREEMENT FRUSTRATED BY SANCTIONS: WHETHER CLAIMANT’S DELAY IN SEEKING INJUNCTIONS JUSTIFIED
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