2,051
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
'''English High Court: Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court); Mr Justice Hamblen; [2015] EWHC 194 (Comm); 5 February 2015'''
Mr Robert Bright QC, instructed by Reed Smith LLP, for the claimant, Shagang Mr Nigel Jacobs QC, instructed by Lax & Co LLP, for the defendant, Daewoo
'''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'''
'''Background'''
The claimant (“Shangang") and the respondent (“Daewoo”) entered into a charterparty by way of a fixture note (“Fixture Note”). Clause 23 of the Fixture Note provided that “ARBITRATION TO BE HELD IN HONGKONG. ENGLISH LAW TO BE APPLIED” and Clause 24 stated that “OTHER TERMS/CONDITIONS AND CHARTER PARTY DETAILS BASE ON GENCON 1994 CHARTER PARTY”.
