A v B [2018] EWHC 2325 (Comm) (07 September 2018)

A v B [2018] EWHC 2325 (Comm) (07 September 2018)

The court held that the tribunal did not commit serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996, nor did it err in law under s.69. The tribunal correctly applied the compensatory principle, did not award double recovery, and was entitled to find that the lost fixtures would have been performed without discount for loss of chance. The pool agreement's accounting was irrelevant at this stage. Delay in the award did not amount to serious irregularity.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2325 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant (respondent in Arbitration): A; Defendant (claimant in Arbitration): B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (challenge to Award) / High Court Judgment on S.68 and S.69 Arbitration Act 1996 Applications
Outcome
Applications under s.68 and s.69 Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity (s.68 Arbitration Act 1996), Appeal on Point of Law (s.69 Arbitration Act 1996), Damages for Breach of Charterparty, Compensatory Principle, Loss of Profits, Wasted Expenditure, Loss of Chance, Pool Agreements in Shipping
Arbitration Commercial Law Shipping Law Serious Irregularity (s.68 Arbitration Act 1996) Appeal on Point of Law (s.69 Arbitration Act 1996) Damages for Breach of Charterparty Compensatory Principle Loss of Profits +3 more

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Claimant (respondent in Arbitration)

B

Defendant (claimant in Arbitration)

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (challenge to Award) / High Court Judgment on S.68 and S.69 Arbitration Act 1996 Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal committed serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal erred in law under s.69 Arbitration Act 1996 regarding the compensatory principle and assessment of damages
  3. 3 Whether both loss of profits and wasted expenditure can be awarded

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the tribunal did not commit serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996, nor did it err in law under s.69. The tribunal correctly applied the compensatory principle, did not award double recovery, and was entitled to find that the lost fixtures would have been performed without discount for loss of chance. The pool agreement's accounting was irrelevant at this stage. Delay in the award did not amount to serious irregularity.

Court Disposition

Applications under s.68 and s.69 Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed.

Orders

  • No order for remission or variation of the award.
  • No permission to appeal granted.