The claimant ship owners challenged an award on two grounds. First, with permission, the owners appealed under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the following question of law: ‘Whether, as a matter of law, owners were entitled to refuse early re-delivery of the Aquafaith (the vessel) at Jintang on 9 August 2011 and affirm the charter, or whether they were bound in law to accept early re-delivery and merely entitled to sue for damages’. Secondly, the owners contended that there was serious irregularity affecting the proceedings and/or the Award, within the meaning of s68 of the Arbitration Act, inasmuch as the arbitrator failed to give any, or any sufficient, weight to the owners’ submissions when deciding the issues which arose between the parties. In so doing, he failed to comply with section 33 of the same Act.
Judges:
Cooke J
Citations:
[2012] EWHC 1077 (Comm), [2012] 2 Lloyds Rep 61, [2012] 1 CLC 899, [2012] 2 All ER (Comm) 461
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Attica Sea Carriers Corporation v Ferrostaal Poseidon Bulk Reederei GmbH, The Puerto Buitrago CA 1976
The parties entered into a charterparty by demise of a bulk carrier. It was in a state of disrepair. The owners required the charterers to repair it before redelivery, and claimed hire losses until it was returned repaired. The extensive repairs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Arbitration
Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.457625
