Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana v Petroleos De Venezuala S.A. [2017] EWHC 3630 (Comm) (17 November 2017)

Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana v Petroleos De Venezuala S.A. [2017] EWHC 3630 (Comm) (17 November 2017)

Clause 18 of the contract of affreightment is properly construed as an agreement to arbitrate disputes in London under English law, providing a proper basis for service out of the jurisdiction. There was good reason to permit alternative service on the defendant's English solicitors given the arbitration context, existing representation, and significant delay in service via the Hague Convention. There was no material non-disclosure sufficient to set aside the order.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3630 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana; Defendant / Applicant: Petroleos de Venezuala S. A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Arbitration Claim / Application to Set Aside Order Permitting Alternative Service of Arbitration Claim Form
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Service Out of Jurisdiction, Alternative Service, Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements, Disclosure Obligations in Ex Parte Applications
Arbitration Civil Procedure Commercial Law Service Out of Jurisdiction Alternative Service Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements Disclosure Obligations in Ex Parte Applications

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana

Claimant / Respondent

Petroleos de Venezuala S. A.

Defendant / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Arbitration Claim / Application to Set Aside Order Permitting Alternative Service of Arbitration Claim Form

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a proper basis for permitting service of the arbitration claim form out of the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether there was good reason to permit alternative service on English solicitors
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure by the claimant in the application for alternative service

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 18 of the contract of affreightment is properly construed as an agreement to arbitrate disputes in London under English law, providing a proper basis for service out of the jurisdiction. There was good reason to permit alternative service on the defendant's English solicitors given the arbitration context, existing representation, and significant delay in service via the Hague Convention. There was no material non-disclosure sufficient to set aside the order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant's application to set aside the order for alternative service is dismissed