Transfield Shipping Inc v Chiping Xinfa Huayu Alumina Co Ltd

Transfield Shipping Inc v Chiping Xinfa Huayu Alumina Co Ltd

Transfield has a good arguable case that there is a binding charter party agreement containing a London arbitration clause, but has not established a high probability of success as required for an anti-suit injunction. The inclusion of 'SUBJS DETAILS' signified that the agreement was not yet binding. Additionally, the application was made too late, after the Chinese proceedings were well advanced, and discretionary relief is denied on grounds of delay.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Transfield Shipping Inc; Respondent/defendant: Chiping Xinfa Huayu Alumina Co Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Anti Suit Injunction / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Arbitration Agreements, Delay in Seeking Relief, Contract Formation
Commercial Law Arbitration Law International Law Anti Suit Injunctions Arbitration Agreements Delay in Seeking Relief Contract Formation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Transfield Shipping Inc

Claimant/applicant

Chiping Xinfa Huayu Alumina Co Ltd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Anti Suit Injunction / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a binding contract containing a London arbitration clause
  2. 2 Whether an anti-suit injunction should be granted to restrain proceedings in China
  3. 3 Effect of delay in seeking anti-suit injunction

Ratio Decidendi

Transfield has a good arguable case that there is a binding charter party agreement containing a London arbitration clause, but has not established a high probability of success as required for an anti-suit injunction. The inclusion of 'SUBJS DETAILS' signified that the agreement was not yet binding. Additionally, the application was made too late, after the Chinese proceedings were well advanced, and discretionary relief is denied on grounds of delay.

Court Disposition

Application refused