African Distribution Company S.a.R.L v Aastar Trading Pte Ltd

African Distribution Company S.a.R.L v Aastar Trading Pte Ltd

ADC failed to demonstrate more than an arguable case that service of the notice of arbitration by email to generic addresses was invalid; the delay in challenging the award was substantial and not sufficiently justified; the extension of time for s.67 and s.68 challenges is refused, but ADC retains an arguable remedy under s.72(1) Arbitration Act 1996.

Parties
Claimant / Respondent to Arbitration: African Distribution Company S.a. R. L.; Defendant / Claimant in Arbitration: AASTAR Trading Pte Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Award and Extension of Time
Outcome
Extension of time for s.67 and s.68 challenges refused; s.72(1) claim remains arguable.
Legal Topics
Service of Arbitration Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Procedural Irregularity, Extension of Time for Challenge, Email Service Validity
Arbitration Commercial Law Service of Arbitration Proceedings Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Procedural Irregularity Extension of Time for Challenge Email Service Validity

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

Parties

African Distribution Company S.a. R. L.

Claimant / Respondent to Arbitration

AASTAR Trading Pte Ltd

Defendant / Claimant in Arbitration

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Award and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of notice of arbitration by email to generic addresses was valid under Arbitration Act 1996 and GAFTA Rules
  2. 2 Whether the arbitral tribunal was properly constituted
  3. 3 Whether ADC had a reasonable opportunity to participate

Ratio Decidendi

ADC failed to demonstrate more than an arguable case that service of the notice of arbitration by email to generic addresses was invalid; the delay in challenging the award was substantial and not sufficiently justified; the extension of time for s.67 and s.68 challenges is refused, but ADC retains an arguable remedy under s.72(1) Arbitration Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Extension of time for s.67 and s.68 challenges refused; s.72(1) claim remains arguable.

Orders

  • ADC's application for extension of time under CPR 62.9 is dismissed.
  • ADC to pay AASTAR's costs of and occasioned by the extension application hearing.