swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Arbitration - From: 2001 To: 2001
This page lists 36 cases, and was prepared on 03 April 2018.
Fence Gate Ltd v NEL Construction Ltd (2001) 82 Con LR 41
2001
His Honour Judge Thornton QC
Arbitration, Costs
An Arbitrator's Award on costs was altered by the Court for a variety of errors by the Arbitrator in his original Award, which were held matters of law. Held: The court set out the principles for such applications: i) For the complaint about a costs award to arise in the form of an appeal, it must be one that can be expressed in the form of a clear question of law. ii) If the complaint is that the decision that the Arbitrator arrived at was wrong because of an error in his appreciation or understanding of the material used as the basis of the award, it may amount to a serious irregularity. But it does not give rise to a question of law. iii) The Arbitrator must not take into account matters which the law or the powers given him by the parties or the general law preclude him from acting on and, conversely, he must not fail to take account of, and give effect to matters that the law requires him to take account of. Moreover, since the tribunal must observe and give effect to the law, the overall discretionary exercise must not be perverse nor one that a reasonable arbitration tribunal properly directing itself could not have reached. iv) A question of law can arise, if it is contended that the Arbitrator misdirected himself by taking into account factors which he should not have done or by failing to take into account factors he should have done (Paragraph 40 of the Judgment).
1 Citers
RC Pillar and Sons v Edwards and another; TCC 11-Jan-2001 - [2001] All ER (D) 232
David Wilson Homes Ltd v Survey Services Ltd and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 34
18 Jan 2001
CA
Arbitration
[ Bailii ]
Profilati Italia SRL and Painewebber Inc v Painewebber International Futures Ltd [2001] EWHC Commercial 24; [2001] 1 All ER 1065
23 Jan 2001
ComC
Moore-Bick J
Arbitration
An award was challenged on the grounds that the successful party had failed to make proper disclosure. Held: Moore-Bick J applied the test whether there was "any substantial likelihood that disclosure . . would have resulted in the tribunal reaching a different conclusion"
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Delos, Owners of Cargo v Delos Shipping Ltd [2001] EWHC 486 (Comm); [2001] 1 Lloyds Rep 703
31 Jan 2001
ComC
Langley J
Contract, Arbitration
Claims for breach of duty and bailment could be brought within the phrase "any disputes under" the contract.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Losinjska Plovidba Brodarstovo Dd v Valfracht Maritime Co Ltd (the Lipa) [2001] EWHC 541 (Comm)
2 Feb 2001
ComC
Andrew Smith J
Arbitration, Transport
Point of construction of a charterparty on the Baltime form (box layout) with additional clauses.
[ Bailii ]
Eagleson v Liddell; CA 2-Feb-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 155
Lg Caltex Gas Co Ltd and Another v China National Petroleum Corporation and Another Times, 23 February 2001
23 Feb 2001
QBD
Arbitration
Parties submitting a dispute to arbitration have the power also to agree that neither should have the power to challenge the decision of the arbitrator in court. That had been the position at common law, and this had survived the Act. The agreement can be ad hoc and informal.
Arbitration Act 1996
1 Cites
1 Citers
Staveley Industries Plc (T/A Ei Whs) v Odebrecht Oil and Gas Services Ltd Gazette, 08 March 2001
8 Mar 2001
TCC
Contract, Construction, Arbitration
Contracts were entered into to design, engineer and supply equipment for installation on oil and gas rigs. The contractor sought to assert that these were contracts governed by the Act, and the provisions for dispute resolution applied. The court held that the act suggested that the construction was to take place on 'the Land' and that there was no intention to include offshore installations within the Act.
Interpretation Act 1978 - Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
Austin Hall Building Ltd v Buckland Securities Ltd [2001] EWHC Technology 434
11 Apr 2001
TCC
Arbitration, Natural Justice
[ Bailii ]
Discain Project Services Ltd v Opecrime Development Ltd [2001] EWHC Technology 435
11 Apr 2001
TCC
Bowsher J QC
Construction, Arbitration
Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act, 1996 108
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Gold Coast Ltd v Caja De Ahorros Del Mediterraneo and others [2001] EWHC 504 (Comm)
2 May 2001
ComC
Banking, Arbitration
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
L G Caltex Gas Co Ltd v National Petroleum Corporation and Another [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 97; [2001] EWCA Civ 788; [2001] CLC 1392; [2001] BLR 325; [2001] 4 All ER 875; (2001) 3 TCLR 22; [2001] 1 WLR 1892
15 May 2001
CA
Lord Phillips MR, Pill, Keene LJJ
Jurisdiction, Arbitration
Section 67(1)(a) applies both when a tribunal finds that it has jurisdiction and also when it declines jurisdiction. The respondent said that an informal agreement with the claiant to allow jurisdiction was limited to certain issues only. While an arbitral tribunal is entitled to determine whether it has jurisdiction, its decision on that issue is not binding on the parties.
Arbitration Act 1996 67 73
[ Bailii ]
Petroships Pte Ltd of Singapore v Petec Trading and Investment Corporation of Vietnam and others [2001] EWHC Commercial 418; [2001] 2 Lloyd's 348
22 May 2001
ComC
Cresswell J
Arbitration
Arbitration Act 1986
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
CMS Dolphin Ltd v Paul M Simonet and Another [2001] EWHC Ch 415; [2001] 2 BCLC 704
23 May 2001
ChD
Justice Lawrence Collins
Company, Arbitration
The claimant asserted that the defendant had, having at one point been a creative director of the claimant, left to set up an alternate competing business, and diverted business from the first company to the new one. There had been disagreements about the extent of capital to be introduced. The defendant asserted that this happened after he had been marginalised within the old company and had resigned as director at the invitation of the other partner. Held: The power to resign is not itself a fiduciary power. A resigning director could not take to himself a business opportunity maturing within the first company. He became a constructive trustee of that maturing business opportunity. In this case the defendant had so acted. He was liable personally even though the opportunity was pursued through a second limited company.
Lawrence Collins J said: "In my judgment the underlying basis of the liability of a director who exploits after his resignation a maturing business opportunity of the company is that the opportunity is to be treated as if it were property of the company in relation to which the director had fiduciary duties. By seeking to exploit the opportunity after resignation he is appropriating for himself that property. He is just as accountable as a trustee who retires without properly accounting for trust property. In the case of the director he becomes a constructive trustee of the fruits of his abuse of the company's property, which he has acquired in circumstances where he knowingly had a conflict of interest, and exploited it by resigning from the company."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Walkinshaw and others v Diniz [2001] EWCA Civ 836
25 May 2001
CA
Arbitration
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
LG Caltex Gas Co Ltd and Another v China National Petroleum Corporation and Another; CA 6-Jun-2001 - Times, 06 June 2001; Gazette, 28 June 2001
BMBF (No 12) Limited v Harland and Wolff Shipbuilding and Heavy Industries Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 862
8 Jun 2001
CA
Contract, Arbitration
[ Bailii ]
Ballast Plc v The Burrell Company (Construction Management) Limited; SCS 21-Jun-2001 - Times, 09 October 2001; [2001] ScotCS 159
Yukos Oil Company v Dardana Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1077
6 Jul 2001
CA
Tuckey LJ
Arbitration
The applicant had sought to have set aside an arbitral award given in Sweden. In the meantime the defendant had applied for its enforcement on an ex parte basis, and the applicant now sought leave to appeal.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
North Range Shipping Ltd v Seatrans Shipping Corporation [2001] EWCA Civ 1260
16 Jul 2001
CA
Arbitration
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Bay Hotel and Resort Limited and Zurich Indemnity Company of Canada v Cavalier Construction Co Ltd and Cavalier Construction Co Ltd [2001] UKPC 34; Appeal No 32 0f 2000
16 Jul 2001
PC
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett
Arbitration, Construction, Contract, Jurisdiction, Commonwealth
(Turks and Caicos Islands) A dispute after a construction contract was under standard terms according to the laws of Turks and Caicos islands. Two issues were appealed. What was a 'reasoned award' within the scheme, and whether the arbitrator could himself add a party to the arbitration. The substantive rather than procedural law of the country where the arbitration was carried out need not be that of the contract. The dispute properly fell to be arbitrated under the standard AAA terms, which provided that both the procedural and jurisdictional law to be applied would be that of the Islands. Though the award was insufficiently detailed to constitute a reasoned decision in English law, the evidence was that it would satisfy the requirements of the law under which it was issued. The clause regarding joinder was one restricting a power which must be derived elsewhere. There was no such power in this case, and the arbitrator was unable to join the other company without the consent of the other parties to the dispute.
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
Aoot Kalmneft v Glencore International AG and Another Times, 20 November 2001
27 Jul 2001
QBD
Colman J
Arbitration, Civil Procedure Rules
When asking whether the time for appeal against an arbitrator's award should be extended, the court should look at several circumstances, including the length of the delay; whether the party was acting reasonably in all the circumstances in delaying; whether the other party had contributed to the delay; whether other party would suffer irremediable prejudice from the delay over and above mere loss of time if the application proceeded; whether the arbitration had continued during the period of delay what impact on progress or costs might arise from the extension; the strength of the application; and whether it would be unfair to deny the applicant opportunity to have the application determined.
Arbitration Act 1996 67 68 69 - Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)
Aoot Kalmnefv v Gencore International Unreported, 27 July 2001
27 Jul 2001
Colman J
Arbitration
"Further, intervention under Section 68 should be invoked only in a clear case of serious irregularity. The court's powers to interfere with an arbitrator's discretionary decision as to how he should exercise his discretion under Section 30(1) should not be engaged unless it is clear that in exercising his discretion he has failed to have regard to the relevant facts and to his duty under Section 33. Unless he has arrived at a conclusion which no reasonable arbitrator could have arrived at in the case in question having regard to his duties under Section 33, it cannot be said that his decision is capable of being characterised as a serious irregularity."
Arbitration Act 1986 68
1 Citers
Kalmneft v Glencore International Ag and Another [2001] EWHC QB 461
27 Jul 2001
QBD
Arbitration
Application of the 1996 Act when one or more of those involved are foreign parties.
Arbitration Act 1996
[ Bailii ]
Aoot Kalmneft v Glencore International Ag and Another; ComC 27-Jul-2001 - [2001] EWHC 464 (Comm)
Mousaka Inc v Golden Seagull Maritime Inc Times, 03 October 2001
30 Jul 2001
QBD
Steel J
Human Rights, Litigation Practice, Arbitration
There has been no change to the rule that a judge refusing leave to appeal from an arbitration award, need not give his reasons. The rationale is that the question is a threshold one, of whether a particular standard had been reached. It was not a situation where a detailed examination was to be undertaken, and accordingly reasons were not appropriate. The position has not changed under the Human Rights Act.
Arbitration Act 1996 69 - Human Rights Act 1998
1 Cites
Scottish Equitable Plc v Miller Construction Ltd [2001] ScotCS 214; [2001] ScotHC 96
31 Aug 2001
IHCS
Lord Prosser, Lord Milligan, Lord Kingarth
Scotland, Construction, Limitation, Arbitration
The parties entered into a contract for the demolition and building of offices. They sought to refer differences to arbitration. The issue as to whether the long or short prescription period operated so as to time bar some parts of the claim. Held: Time began to run only from the time of the issue of the final certificate, and accordingly claims which might have been asserted at earlier times in the execution of the contract were not time barred.
Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972 3 - Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 6, Sch 1 - Scottish Building Contract (with Quantities) January 1988
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
Profilati Italia S R L v Painewebber Incorporated, Painewebber International Futures Limited [2001] 1 All ER 1065
12 Sep 2001
ComC
Moore-Bick J
Arbitration, Financial Services
CS Arbitration - Award - Application to set aside award on the grounds of serious irregularity - Arbitration Act 1996 s. 68(2)(g) - whether inadvertent failure to disclose relevant documents resulted in award being procured in a way contrary to public policy - whether respondents suffered substantial injustice. Arbitration - Disclosure - Arbitration under Rules of the London Metal Exchange - duty of respondent to give disclosure - whether respondent failed to disclose relevant documents
The Applicant challenged an arbitration award made under the rules of the London Metal Exchange. They claimed that they had incurred losses through the wrongful closure of its credit line and by closing out the business between them. They claimed the award would not have been made had the defendants made full disclosure of documents which later came to light. They claimed this to be in breach of public policy rather than by fraud. This applied for the most serious of cases where justice called out for a remedy. In this case disclosure may not have included these documents, and they may not have had the substantial effect claimed. The application failed.
Arbitration Act 1996 68(2)(g)
Orkney Islands Council for Suspension and Interdict [2001] ScotHC 105
21 Sep 2001
ScHC
Scotland, Construction, Arbitration
A contract for works contained an arbitration clause, which, following a dispute was invoked. The council sought an interdict against the appointment of an arbiter on the grounds that any dispute was now time barred, and that the dispute was not of a nature to found a reference. The defenders said there had been an interruption of the running of time in the dispute. The arbiter could himself decide if the dispute was time barred, and also whether there was a dispute capable of arbitration. Interim interdict refused.
Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 6
[ Bailii ]
Orkney Islands Council for Suspension and Interdict [2001] ScotCS 222
21 Sep 2001
SCS
Scotland, Arbitration, Limitation
A notice was served seeking to refer a dispute to arbitration. By the time of the hearing the claim itself would be time barred, unless it could be established that service of the notice was enough to suspend time running. It was argued that the notice served to stop time running only conditional upon an arbitration being begun. The court decided that the issue of limitation could properly be determined by an arbitrator, and the court should not intervene.
Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 6
[ Bailii ]
Commission v Manuel Pereira Roldao and Filhos Ltd and others C-59/99; [2001] EUECJ C-59/99
13 Nov 2001
ECJ
Arbitration
Arbitration clause - Reimbursement of advance payments made under a contract terminated by the Commission for non-performance
[ Bailii ]
Veba Oil Supply and Trading Gmbh v Petrotrade Inc [2001] EWCA Civ 1832; [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 295; [2002] CLC 405; [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 295; [2002] 1 LLR 295; [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 306; [2002] 1 All ER 703; [2002] BLR 54
6 Dec 2001
CA
Simon Brown, Tuckey, Dyson LJJ
Arbitration
A dispute between parties to a contract was to be determined by an independent expert. It was claimed that his report was not binding on the parties, since he had departed from his instructions in a material way. In this context, what constituted a material way. Oil was being transported and was to be valued by testing. The expert used a different method of testing from that specified in the contract. Held: The test actually used was more accurate than the one specified. Nevertheless the parties had specified the required test, and the party was entitled for it to be used. Was the departure material? A mistake is one thing; a departure from instructions quite another. A mistake is made when an expert goes wrong in the course of carrying out his instructions. The difference between that and an expert not carrying out his instructions is obvious. A mistake which affects the result could previously have vitiated the result. The parties have not agreed to be bound by a test which was not the one specified. Once a material departure from instructions is established, the court is not concerned with its effect on the result. The departure was material, and the test not binding, even though it might not have affected the results.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Gold Coast Ltd v Caja De Ahorros Del Mediterraneo and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1806; [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 142; [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 617; [2002] 1 LLR 617; [2002] CLC 397
6 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Tuckey And Lady Justice Hale
Banking, Arbitration
The banks appealed findings as to their liability to pay out under on-demand guarantees they had given in respect of stage payments for the construction of a ship. It was claimed that the delivery times had not been met, and the builder was in default. The demand was certified by the buyer's bankers who had funded the purchase. The banks said that payment was only demandable after the result of an arbitration was received. Held: 'On demand' guarantees, where the demand was supported by a bona fide certificate, should be given effect on their terms. There was nothing in the agreement to support any requirement to delay satisfaction of the guarantee pending the result of the arbitration, and: "where in international transactions a bond or guarantee is expressed to be payable upon demand, in the absence of clear words indicating that liability under it is conditional upon the existence of liability or the part of the account party in connection with the underlying transaction, the guarantee is intended and should be construed as an independent guarantee entitling the beneficiary to payment simply against an appropriately worded demand accompanied by such other documents (if any) as the guarantee may require."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Discain Project Services Limited v Opecprime Developments Limited [2001] EWHC Technology 450
11 Dec 2001
TCC
Judge Richard Seymour Q.C.
Construction, Arbitration
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Dardana Ltd v Yukos Oil Company Times, 04 February 2002
21 Dec 2001
QBD
Chambers J
International, Costs, Arbitration
The defendant sought to challenge the enforcement here of a foreign arbitration award. It sought security for costs. Held: The action was not a challenge to the award itself, but rather to challenge an attempt to enforce it in England. The challenge was therefore in its nature defensive, and accordingly the courts did have power to require security for costs against the claimant.
Practice Direction: Arbitrations (Civil Procedure volume 2, paragraph 2B-1) 31.3 - Arbitration Act 1996 103
1 Cites
1 Citers
