2,051
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
Prior to the present case, the above arrangements had been repeated 33 times. In each case, the Claimant had been copied into an email attaching a bill of lading (drawn up by SS) which named the shipper as the Claimant (rather than RS) and RS as the consignee. The Claimant was never asked to approve the bills of lading and never expressed objection to the same.
The present dispute arose when an explosion occurred on 13 January 2017 on board a vessel (“Vessel”), which had been chartered by RS under a voyage charterparty (“Voyage Charterparty”) with the disponent owners of the Vessel. As with the previous 33 transactions, a bill of lading was issued (“Bill of Lading”) naming the Claimant as shipper and RS as consignee. The information naming the Claimant as the shipper in the Bill of Lading could only have come from RS. The Bill of Lading incorporated by reference the terms and conditions of the Voyage Charterparty, including an arbitration agreement. As a result of the explosion, said to have been caused by the cargo during transit, the Defendant owner of the Vessel claimed damages in compensation for losses from the shipper named in the Bill of Lading.
The Claimant denied liability. The Claimant contended that it was not the shipper or a party to the contract of carriage, and was erroneously named as such in the Bill of Lading. It followed that no arbitration agreement existed between the Claimant and the Defendant. On these bases, the Claimant challenged the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal (“Tribunal”). The Tribunal, however, dismissed the challenge.
