Difference between revisions of "Arbitration Issues"

From DMC
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
'''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[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/National_Navigation_v_ Endesa]]'''
+
'''English Court of Appeal: Waller, Carnwath and Moore-Bick LJJ: [2009] EWCA Civ 1397, [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 193: 17 December 2009[[http://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'''

Revision as of 20:42, 2 March 2011

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[[1]]

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: [[2]]

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 [[3]]

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[[4]]

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 [[5]]

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 [[6]]

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[[7]]

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”)[8]

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