Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 2003 To: 2003

This page lists 39 cases, and was prepared on 03 April 2018.

 
American International Speciality Lines Insurance Co v Abbott Laboratories [2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep 267
2003

Cresswell J
Arbitration

1 Citers


 
Gas Natural SDG SA v The Argentine Republic ARB/03/10
2003
ICSID

International, Arbitration
"The scheme of both the ICSID Convention and the bilateral investment treaties is that in this circumstance, the foreign investor acquires rights under the Convention and Treaty, including in particular the standing to initiate international arbitration."
1 Citers


 
Virdee v Virdi [2003] EWCA Civ 41
2003


Arbitration

1 Citers


 
In re Magi Capital Partners LLC [2003] EWHC 2790 (Ch)
2003


Company, Arbitration
The court stayed a petition under the section to allow for an arbitration.
Companies Act 1985 459
1 Citers


 
Hunter Kane Ltd v Watkins [2003] EWHC 186 (Ch)
2003

B Livesey QC
Arbitration

1 Citers


 
Costain Ltd v Wescol Steel Ltd [2003] EWHC 312 (TCC)
24 Jan 2003
TCC

Construction, Arbitration

[ Bailii ]
 
Associated Electric and Gas Insurance Services Limited v European Reinsurance Company of Zurich [2003] UKPC 11; Gazette, 20 March 2003
29 Jan 2003
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett and Sir Christopher Staughton
Arbitration
PC (Bermuda) The defendant had fallen into two disputes on the same point which were arbitrated. The first award was subject to an express confidentiality agreement. The other party in the later award sought to rely upon the earlier award, claiming an issue estoppel. Held: Confidentiality provisions must be seen in the context of the principles and purpose of arbitration. Use of an earlier award was legitimate in a later private arbitration, since it did not activate the mischief against which it was sought to protect the parties. Prohibit all disclosures would frustrate the arbitration by preventing the winner enforcing the rights declared in its favour. Strict enforcement could legitimately include relying on the award to found a plea of issue estoppel in the later arbitration.
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
CR Sugar Trading Ltd (In Administration) v China National Sugar and Alcohol Group Corporation [2003] EWHC 79 (Comm)
31 Jan 2003
ComC

Arbitration

[ Bailii ]
 
Checkpoint Ltd v Strathclyde Pension Fund Times, 12 February 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 84; [2003] 14 EG 124
6 Feb 2003
CA
Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Jonathon Parker
Arbitration, Landlord and Tenant
The tenants sought to challenge the arbitrator's award setting the rent payable under the lease. They claimed that he had improperly refered to his own experience of the market, to support his decision, and this committed a serious irregularity under section 68(2). Held: The system of arbitration expected an arbitrator to rely to some extent upon his experience. It was difficult to formulate a test which could identify the point at which an arbitrator relying upon his experience should disclose this and invite comment from the parties. The suggested distinction between 'general expert knowledge' and 'knowledge of specific facts relevant to the particular case' was not always easy to apply. In this case it might be unfair for him to draw upon more than the level of knowledge which one might expect of someone asked to arbitrate in such a case. Here surprise or sympathy for the tenant could not support a finding of any serious procedural irregularity.
Ward LJ said that the court should "try to assess how the [applicant] would have conducted his case but for the procedural irregularity", and continued: "It is the denial of the fair hearing, to summarise procedural irregularity, which must be shown to have caused a substantial injustice. A technical irregularity may not. The failure to deal with a substantial issue probably will."
Arbitration Act 1996 68(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hussmann (Europe) Limited v Ahmed Pharaon (Formerly Trading As Al Ameen Development and Trade Establishment) Times, 12 March 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 266; Gazette, 15 May 2003
4 Mar 2003
CA
Lord Justice Rix Mr Justice Scott Baker The Master Of The Rolls
Arbitration
The appellant sought to set aside a declaration as to the validity of an arbitration award. A first award had been declared of no effect, and the case remitted to the arbitrator, and the second award was now challenged on the basis that the reference to the arbitrator was exhausted by the first award. Held: The delaration as to the first award did not mean that the reference to arbitration was spent, and the arbitrator's jurisdiction continued, he was not functus officio. There was little useful to be gained by a distinction between a declaration of no effect, and a setting aside. A valid final award would exhaust the jurisdiction, but there was no reason to think that anything less would have the same effect.
Arbitration Act 1996 67(3)(c)
[ Bailii ]
 
Whiting v Halverson and others [2003] EWCA Civ 403
6 Mar 2003
CA

Arbitration

[ Bailii ]
 
Afzal v Chubb Guarding Services [2003] EWHC 83 (TCC)
13 Mar 2003
TCC

Construction, Arbitration

Housing, Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 108(1)
[ Bailii ]
 
Fleming and Wendeln Gmbh and Co v Sanofi Sa/Ag [2003] EWHC 561 (Comm)
20 Mar 2003
ComC

Contract, Arbitration
The parties concluded a contract for the sale and purchase of 20,000MT up to 30,000MT at Sellers' option Russian/Ukrainian black sunseed crop 1997. The price was to "be fixed for each shipment latest 15 days prior delivery … In case Buyers/Sellers don't find an agreement Sellers keep the right to re-sell part or totality of the mensuality on the free market and this contract will confirm[ed] by the broker as a proof of the fulfilment of the contractual obligations for the mensuality concerned." As to delivery, the contract provided:- "November 1997/March 1998 for quantity equally spread for each delivery but with possibility to cumulate part or totality of one mensuality to the next one if both Buyers and Sellers agreed upon." The contract contained further provisions as to Quality, Payment, Loading Rate, Special Conditions and Brokerage. The contract further provided "All Other terms conditions as per ctr GAFTA 78 Arbitration London 125". Thus the contract incorporated GAFTA form 78 (Contract for Bulk Grain and Pulses by Rail effective 1.1.95) and the arbitration rules set out in GAFTA form 125. Certain deliveries were made under the contract. By early 1998 a substantial quantity (12,250/22, 250 tonnes Sellers' option) remained undelivered. Disputes arose concerning the delivered parcels and the undelivered balance. A GAFTA first-tier arbitration tribunal was appointed. The court was to consider the size of any undelivered balance of the Contract; whether Sellers were in default for failure to deliver; and if so, the damages. Appeal dismissed.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Trustees Harbours Peterhead v Lilley Construction [2003] ScotCS 91; Times, 24 April 2003
1 Apr 2003
SCS

Scotland, Construction, Arbitration
The parties had a dispute which was referred to adjudication and had been adjudicated, and could not be referred again. Further disputes arose, and the pursuers issued proceedings. The defenders requested that it be refferd to arbitration, and the pursuers said that under the contract and regulations, once a case had gone to adjudication, it could not later be referred to arbitration. Held: The adjudication reference did not prevent a later arbitration. The regulation explicitly envisaged the adjudication preventing an arbitration if it had settled all matters of dispute.
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 108(4) - Construction Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No 647)
[ Bailii ]
 
St Andrews Bay Development Limited v HBG Management Limited for Judicial Review of an Adjudicator's Pretended Decision [2003] ScotCS 103
4 Apr 2003
SCS
Lord Wheatley
Scotland, Arbitration
An arbitrator's failure may not be so serious as to make his decision a nullity.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
J I MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company S A, "The Rafaela S" [2003] EWCA Civ 556; Times, 05 May 2003; Gazette, 03 July 2003; [2004] QB 702; [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 113
16 Apr 2003
CA
Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Peter Gibson Mr Justice Jacob
Transport, Arbitration
Machinery was damaged whilst in transit, on the second of two legs. The contract described itself as a through bill of lading, but the port of discharge was not the final destination. Held: The contract was a straight bill of lading. A straight bill of lading requires delivery of the goods to the named consignee and no other. The first carrier acted only as an agent in arranging the on-carriage by the second carrier. A straight bill of lading is a "bill of lading or any similar document of title" within the Act.
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Orange EBS Ltd v ABB Ltd [2003] EWHC 1187 (TCC)
22 May 2003
TCC
Her Honour Judge Frances Kirkham
Construction, Arbitration

Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
[ Bailii ]
 
Moscow City Council v Bankers Trust Company and Another Times, 01 September 2003
5 Jun 2003
QBD
Cooke J
Arbitration, Civil Procedure Rules
Proceedings before an arbitrator were governed by rule 62.10, which provided its own entire code, and imposed a presumption in favour of privacy. The principles of Scott v Scott need not apply. Scott would now be decided under analogous reasonings under the Human Rights Act.
Civil Procedure Rules 62.10 - Arbitration Act 1996 68 - European Convention on Human Rights A-6
1 Cites


 
Department of Economics Policy and Development of the City of Moscow v Bankers Trust Co and Another [2003] EWHC 1377 (Comm); [2003] 1 WLR 2885
5 Jun 2003
ComC
Cooke J
Arbitration

[ Bailii ]
 
Warborough Investments Ltd v S Robinson and Sons (Holdings) Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 751; Gazette, 19 June 2003; Times, 09 July 2003
10 Jun 2003
CA
Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Arbitration, Landlord and Tenant
The applicant sought remission of the decision of the arbitrator on a rent review. The arbitrator had taken a different approach from that suggested by either party's expert. Held: Arbitrators should be give a wide margin of appreciation. Even if there had been an irregularity, the arbitrator had not gone so far wrong in coming to a conclusion was 'materially different' from a conclusion without the irregularity, as to allow any interference in his award.
Arbitration Act 1996 1(a) 33 68
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bracken and Another v Billinghurst [2003] EWHC 1333 (TCC); [2003] CILL 2039; [2004] TCLR 4
10 Jun 2003
TCC
Wilcox J
Construction, Arbitration
The claimants claimed the sum due under an adjudication award of £43,984.66. The claimants had originallyy told the defendant they would take £6,000 in settlement of the award. They were sent a cheque for £5,000 expressed to be "in full and final settlement" of the debt. The defendant now said that the letter sent by their solicitors clearly stipulated that "The payment is tended as an offer of settlement which will deemed to have accepted by you and therefore be contractually binding if it is presented to your bank and cleared for payment. If you are not willing to accept the payment on these terms, would you please return the payment and we will assume therefore that the dispute will have to continue". The claimants waited two weeks before presenting it. Then two days after clearance they wrote to inform the defendant that they would not accept the lesser sum in satisfaction of the debt. The claimant sought summary judgment. Held: The request was refused. This was too long a period of time for the claimant to have held the cheque without informing the defendant of their intentions. Also, since the offer and payment were made by a third party, the presentation of the cheque was taken to be a clear acceptance of the offer of compromise.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
RSL (South West) Ltd v Stansell Ltd [2003] EWHC 1390 (TCC)
16 Jun 2003
TCC

Construction, Arbitration

[ Bailii ]
 
BLCT (13096) Ltd v J Sainsbury Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 884
30 Jun 2003
CA

Arbitration

[ Bailii ]
 
Petroleo Brasileiro S A v Kriti Akti Shipping Co S A [2003] EWHC 1634 (Comm)
9 Jul 2003
ComC

Arbitration

[ Bailii ]
 
Agrimex Ltd v Tradigrain Sa and others [2003] EWHC 1656 (Comm); Times, 12 August 2003
9 Jul 2003
ComC
The Honourable Mr Justice Thomas
Arbitration, Costs
Challenge was brought against the fees charged by the arbitrator, and in particular at the cost of the arbitrator bringing in a legally qualified draftsman. Held: A draftsman's task would not be himself to refine the arbitrator's reasoning, but rather to express it as exactly as was necessary for the case. Such an appointment would be unnecessary in most cases, and particularly where the amount at issue was not great, but could apply where the issues were complex, although an assessor might be more appropriate. Antagonism and a legalistic approach would not of itself justify such an appointment, though the attitude of the parties in general could be taken into account. Old cases were not useful in such a context. The court would not say that the appointment was wrong, but the costs incurred were quite disproportionate and reduced accordingly.
Arbitration Act 1996 28(2) 28(3)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Peoples' Insurance Company of China, Hebei Branch, China National Feeding Stuff Import/Export Corporation v Vysanthi Shipping Co Limited [2003] EWHC 1655 (Comm)
10 Jul 2003
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Thomas
Transport, Arbitration

[ Bailii ]
 
Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo Spa and others [2003] EWCA Civ 1159; Times, 15 September 2003; Gazette, 16 October 2003; [2003] BLR 347; [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 97; [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 497
31 Jul 2003
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Latham And Mr Justice Holman
Arbitration, Construction
The parties went to arbitration to resolve disputes in a construction contract. The award appeared to have been made for payment in currencies different from those set out in the contract. The question was asked as to whether the award of interest was a matter of law or of procedure. Held: The issue of currency was not one of procedure, and should have been settled according to the applicable law, that of Lesotho. Where the law of a different jurisdiction, such as the law of Lesotho, confers a substantive right to interest ex mora, there is no room for any discretionary procedural power. The unpaid party to a contract is entitled as of substantive right to interest from the time when payment is contractually due.
Arbitration Act 1996 - Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ocean Marine Navigation Ltd v Koch Carbon Inc ('The Dynamic') [2003] EWHC 1936 (Comm); [2003] 2 Lloyds Rep 693
31 Jul 2003
ComC
Simon J
Arbitration, Transport
The arbitrator had held in favour of the charterers that the owners were limited to damages and could not claim hire. The owners appealed. Held. The arbitrator had not applied the law correctly in rejecting the owners' claim to hire, and he remitted the award.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Peterson Farms v C and M Farming Ltd and Another [2003] EWHC 2298 (Comm)
5 Sep 2003
ComC

Arbitration

Arbitration Act 1996 70(7)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
AMEC Capital Projects Ltd v Whitefriars City Estate Ltd [2003] EWHC 2443 (TCC)
19 Sep 2003
TCC

Arbitration
Application to enforce adjudicators award, and application to stay same.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Nasharty and others v J Sainsbury Plc [2003] EWHC 2195 (Comm); [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 728; [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 309
30 Sep 2003
ComC
Flaux J
Arbitration
Application for stay of proceedings for arbitration.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Thomas-Fredric's (Construction) Ltd v Wilson [2003] EWCA Civ 1494
21 Oct 2003
CA
Simon Brown LJ
Construction, Arbitration
The court considered the situation where a defendant to an arbitration award enforcement application now challenged the arbitrator's jurisdiction. Held: Simon Brown LJ said: "The position can I think be summarised in the following two propositions. (1) If a defendant to a Part 24(2) application has submitted to the adjudicator's jurisdiction in the full sense of having agreed not only that the adjudicator should rule on the issue of jurisdiction but also that he would then be bound by that ruling, then he is liable to enforcement in the short term, even if the adjudicator was plainly wrong on the issue. (2) Even if the defendant has not submitted to the adjudicator's jurisdiction in that sense, then he is still liable to a Part 24(2) summary judgment upon the award if the adjudicator's ruling on the jurisdictional issue was plainly right."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Dean and Dyball Construction Ltd v Kenneth Grubb Associates Ltd [2003] EWHC 2465 (TCC)
28 Oct 2003
TCC

Arbitration, Construction

[ Bailii ]
 
Cantrell and Another v Wright and Fuller Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1565
29 Oct 2003
CA
Mummery, Tucker LJJ
Arbitration
renewed application for leave to appeal
[ Bailii ]

 
 Simons Construction Limited v Aardvark Developments Limited; TCC 29-Oct-2003 - [2003] EWHC 2474 (TCC); [2004] BLR 117
 
Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves and Company Ltd and others [2003] EWHC 2602 (Comm)
7 Nov 2003
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Colman
Contract, Transport, Arbitration
One party sought a declaration that arbitrators should have no jurisdiction to determine claims for commission said to be due to the Respondent chartering brokers. Held: Because he has in effect become a statutory assignee of the promisee’s right of action against the promisor and because, by reason of the underlying policy of section 1(4), he is confined to the means of enforcement provided by the contract to the promisee, namely arbitration. He is to be treated as standing in the shoes of that promisee for the purpose only of the enforcement of the substantive term. In this case, the scope of the disputes covered by the arbitration agreements was wide enough to embrace a dispute between owners and charterers about payment of the brokers’ commission, and they fell to be resolved by arbitration.
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 1(4) - Arbitration Act 1996 67
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Good Challenger Navegante S A v Metalexportimport SA [2003] EWCA Civ 1668; Times, 27 November 2003; Gazette, 15 January 2004; [2004] 1 Lloyd's Law Reports 67
24 Nov 2003
CA
Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Mantell Mr Justice Rimer
Arbitration, Limitation
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in 1983. Time might otherwise have expired, but the claimants relied on a fax which they said was an acknowledgement of the debt, and also upon a finding in a Romanian court which created an issue estoppel. Held: A typed signature on a fax was capable of being an acknowledgement since section 30 derived from the 1677 Act which would have accepted such. "The crucial point here is that Navlomar’s typed signature appeared on the telex in circumstances in which it is evident that it was put on with Navlomar’s authority" and "to establish an issue estoppel four conditions must be satisfied (1) the judgment must be given by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction; (2) the judgment must be final and conclusive and on the merits; (3) there must be identity of parties; and (4) there must be identity of subject matter, which means that the issue decided by the foreign court must be the same as that arising in the English proceedings." The issue had not been a necessary part of the Romanian decision (under 2 above), and therefore no issue estoppel arose.
When an ex parte application for leave was made under s.26, that was an action brought for the purposes of s.7 of the Limitation Act 1980; that was because such an application was an alternative to proceeding by way of writ or originating summons.
Limitation Act 1980 30
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
BNP Paribas and others v Deloitte and Touche Llp [2003] EWHC 2874 (Comm)
28 Nov 2003
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Morison
Arbitration

[ Bailii ]
 
Galliford Try Construction Ltd v Michael Heal Associates Ltd [2003] EWHC 2886 (TCC)
1 Dec 2003
TCC

Construction, Arbitration

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.