Internaut Shipping GmbH & Anor v Fercometal Sarl

Internaut Shipping GmbH & Anor v Fercometal Sarl

Internaut, and not Sphinx, is party to the charterparty and the arbitration agreement, as evidenced by its unqualified signature as owner and absence of agency relationship with Sphinx. The arbitration, although commenced innominately, was authorised and commenced by Internaut. The subsequent conduct of the arbitration in Sphinx’s name was not a mere misnomer but a substantive mistake as to identity, rendering that part of the arbitration a nullity. The arbitration survives in its origin as between Internaut and Fercometal, and its future conduct is a matter for the arbitrators.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Internaut Shipping GmbH; Claimant/respondent: Sphinx Navigation Limited of Liberia; Defendant/appellant: Fercometal SARL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (commercial/arbitration) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; lower court order largely upheld with variation.
Legal Topics
Identity of Contracting Parties, Authority to Arbitrate, Misnomer Vs. Mistake of Identity, Agency and Personal Liability, Jurisdiction of Arbitrators
Commercial Law Arbitration Law Contract Law Identity of Contracting Parties Authority to Arbitrate Misnomer Vs. Mistake of Identity Agency and Personal Liability Jurisdiction of Arbitrators

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Internaut Shipping GmbH

Claimant/respondent

Sphinx Navigation Limited of Liberia

Claimant/respondent

Fercometal SARL

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (commercial/arbitration) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is party to the charterparty: Internaut, Sphinx, or both?
  2. 2 Who is party to the original arbitration?
  3. 3 Do arbitrators have power to amend the points of claim to substitute Internaut for Sphinx?

Ratio Decidendi

Internaut, and not Sphinx, is party to the charterparty and the arbitration agreement, as evidenced by its unqualified signature as owner and absence of agency relationship with Sphinx. The arbitration, although commenced innominately, was authorised and commenced by Internaut. The subsequent conduct of the arbitration in Sphinx’s name was not a mere misnomer but a substantive mistake as to identity, rendering that part of the arbitration a nullity. The arbitration survives in its origin as between Internaut and Fercometal, and its future conduct is a matter for the arbitrators.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; lower court order largely upheld with variation.

Orders

  • Internaut is, but Sphinx is not, a party to the charterparty.
  • Internaut is, but Sphinx is not and never has been, party to the original arbitration.