Arbitration Issues: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(Make page HTTPS) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
'''Shagang South-Asia Trading Co Ltd v Daewoo Logistics''' | '''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: [[ | '''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''' | '''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''' | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
'''Transgrain Shipping BV v Deiulemar Shipping SpA and Eleni Shipping Ltd (The “Eleni P”)''' | '''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:[[ | '''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''' | '''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''' | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
'''Viscous Global Investment Ltd v Palladium Navigation Corp (The “Quest”)''' | '''Viscous Global Investment Ltd v Palladium Navigation Corp (The “Quest”)''' | ||
'''English Commercial Court: Males J: [2014] EWHC 2654 (Comm): 30 July 2014:[[ | '''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''' | '''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''' | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
'''Emirates Trading Agency LLC v Prime Mineral Exports Private Limited''' | '''Emirates Trading Agency LLC v Prime Mineral Exports Private Limited''' | ||
'''English High Court: Teare J.: [2014] EWHC 2104 (Comm): 1 July 2014:[[ | '''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''' | '''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''' | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
'''England''' | '''England''' | ||
'''Caresse Navigation Ltd v Office National de l’Electricité (the "Channel Ranger"): [2013] EWHC 3081 (Comm): Males J.: 14 October 2013:[[ | '''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''' | '''BILL OF LADING: WHETHER WORDS OF INCORPORATION REFERRING TO ARBITRATION ARE SUFFICIENT TO INCORPORATE CHARTERPARTY JURISDICTION PROVISIONS''' | ||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
'''Cottonex Anstalt v Patriot Spinning Mills Ltd [2014] EWHC 236 (Comm)''' | '''Cottonex Anstalt v Patriot Spinning Mills Ltd [2014] EWHC 236 (Comm)''' | ||
'''English High Court: Hamblen J.: 14 February 2014:[[ | '''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''' | '''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''' | ||
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
'''Beijing Jianlong Heavy Industry Group v Golden Ocean Group Ltd and Others''' | '''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: [[ | '''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''' | '''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''' | ||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
'''Transport and Maritime Arbitration Rotterdam-Amsterdam ("Tamara") Arbitration''' | '''Transport and Maritime Arbitration Rotterdam-Amsterdam ("Tamara") Arbitration''' | ||
'''Anonymous, Procedural Order of a Tamara arbitration tribunal, 10 December 2012:[[ | '''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''' | '''ARBITRATION UNDER TAMARA RULES: WHAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE ARBITRATION SHOULD BE FAILING A CHOICE PREVIOUSLY MADE BY THE PARTIES''' | ||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
'''AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v. Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC''' | '''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:[[ | '''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''' | '''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''' | ||
| Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
'''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 118: | Line 118: | ||
'''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 132: | Line 132: | ||
'''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 141: | Line 141: | ||
'''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 151: | Line 151: | ||
'''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 162: | Line 162: | ||
'''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 173: | Line 173: | ||
'''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 185: | Line 185: | ||
'''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 196: | Line 196: | ||
'''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 207: | Line 207: | ||
'''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 218: | Line 218: | ||
'''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 230: | Line 230: | ||
'''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 241: | Line 241: | ||
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 252: | Line 252: | ||
'''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 264: | Line 264: | ||
'''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 275: | Line 275: | ||
'''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 286: | Line 286: | ||
'''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 295: | Line 295: | ||
'''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 307: | Line 307: | ||
'''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 319: | Line 319: | ||
'''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 334: | Line 334: | ||
'''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 343: | Line 343: | ||
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 358: | Line 358: | ||
'''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 370: | Line 370: | ||
'''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 381: | Line 381: | ||
'''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 394: | Line 394: | ||
'''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''' | ||
Revision as of 16:10, 8 October 2018
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: [[1]]
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:[[2]]
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:[[3]]
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:[[4]]
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:[[5]]
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:[[6]]
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: [[7]]
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:[[8]]
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:[[9]]
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:[[10]]
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:[[11]]
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:[[12]]
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:[[13]]
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: [[14]]
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: [[15]]
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: [[16]]
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:[[17]]
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:[[18]]
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:[[19]]
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:[[20]]
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: [[21]]
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:[[22]]
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;[[23]]
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: [[24]]
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:[[25]]
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:[[26]]
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:[[27]]
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[[28]]
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: [[29]]
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 [[30]]
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[[31]]
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 [[32]]
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 [[33]]
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[[34]]
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”)[35]
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
