Site icon swarb.co.uk

West of England Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association (Luxembourg) v Cristal Ltd (The Glacier Bay): CA 26 Oct 1995

An agreement giving to a ‘sole judge’ the power to make a final decision was effective, and there was no appeal from his decision. The defendant’s decision in his capacity as Convention administrator was as a final arbiter and was unreviewable.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The agreement was unusual, but the decisions was final and binding ‘ . .subject . . to any question of unfairness, bad faith or perversity’. Neill LJ ‘It remains the general rule of common law that an agreement wholly to oust the jurisdiction of the Courts is against public policy and void. . . It is clear, however, that in applying the rule questions of fact are treated differently from questions of law . .’

Judges:

Neill LJ

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-1995, Independent 01-Nov-1995, [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 370, [1996] CLC 240

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromWest of England Shipowners Mutual Insurance Association (Luxembourg) v Cristal Ltd ComC 25-Jan-1995
cw Contract – contractual rights – fulfilment of conditions – freedom to fulfil bargain – court action precluded – ouster clauses – arbitration – term – construction – one party sole arbitrator of construction – . .

Cited by:

CitedSkidmore v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust HL 22-May-2003
The disciplinary code for doctors employed by the NHS provides different procedures cases involving allegations of ‘professional conduct’ or ‘personal conduct.’ The first would involve a more judicial process, and the second a more informal . .
Reversed on AppealWest of England Shipowners Mutual Insurance Association (Luxembourg) v Cristal Ltd ComC 25-Jan-1995
cw Contract – contractual rights – fulfilment of conditions – freedom to fulfil bargain – court action precluded – ouster clauses – arbitration – term – construction – one party sole arbitrator of construction – . .
CitedMcNicholas Plc v AEI Cables Limited TCC 25-May-1999
The claimant had subcontracted to supply cabling on the defendant’s project. The contract provided both for the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts but also for arbitration. The defendant applied for the action to be stayed and referred to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Arbitration, Contract

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.90396

Exit mobile version