Lorand Shipping Ltd v Davof Trading (Africa) BV MV "Ocean Glory"

Lorand Shipping Ltd v Davof Trading (Africa) BV MV "Ocean Glory"

The tribunal committed a serious irregularity under s68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by adopting a course of action not advocated by either party and failing to give the parties an opportunity to address it, contrary to its duty under s33. This caused substantial injustice to the Owners, as they were shut out from pursuing further claims due to the time bar in the charterparty. The relevant paragraphs of the award were set aside and the matter remitted to the tribunal.

Parties
Applicant/owner: Lorand Shipping Limited; Respondent/charterer: Davof Trading (Africa) B.V.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Application Under S68 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application under s68 Arbitration Act 1996 allowed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under S68 Arbitration Act 1996, Tribunal's Duty Under S33 Arbitration Act 1996, Time Bar Clauses in Charterparties, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Remission of Award
Arbitration Commercial Law Shipping Serious Irregularity Under S68 Arbitration Act 1996 Tribunal's Duty Under S33 Arbitration Act 1996 Time Bar Clauses in Charterparties Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Remission of Award

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 2 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lorand Shipping Limited

Applicant/owner

Davof Trading (Africa) B.V.

Respondent/charterer

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Application Under S68 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal committed a serious irregularity under s68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by failing to give parties an opportunity to address the course of action adopted in the award
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal's failure caused substantial injustice to the Owners by shutting out further claims due to the time bar in the charterparty

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal committed a serious irregularity under s68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by adopting a course of action not advocated by either party and failing to give the parties an opportunity to address it, contrary to its duty under s33. This caused substantial injustice to the Owners, as they were shut out from pursuing further claims due to the time bar in the charterparty. The relevant paragraphs of the award were set aside and the matter remitted to the tribunal.

Court Disposition

Application under s68 Arbitration Act 1996 allowed

Orders

  • Paragraphs 30-31 of the arbitration award set aside and declared of no effect
  • Matter remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration