Soletanche Bachy France SAS v Aqaba Container Terminal (Pvt) Co [2019] EWHC 362 (Comm) (17 January 2019)

Soletanche Bachy France SAS v Aqaba Container Terminal (Pvt) Co [2019] EWHC 362 (Comm) (17 January 2019)

There was no material change in Arbitrator X's relationship with BAM requiring further disclosure; no objective risk of bias arose. The tribunal addressed all essential issues raised by the parties, including extensions of time and future performance. The approach to concurrent delay did not cause substantial...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 362 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Soletanche Bachy France S. A. S; Defendant: Aqaba Container Terminal (PVT.) Co.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 Ss. 67 and 68 / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application to set aside arbitration award dismissed
Legal Topics
Arbitrator Impartiality and Disclosure, Apparent Bias, Failure to Address Issues, Concurrent Delay, Correction of Arbitral Award, Jurisdiction Under Arbitration Act 1996
Arbitration Commercial Law Construction Law Arbitrator Impartiality and Disclosure Apparent Bias Failure to Address Issues Concurrent Delay Correction of Arbitral Award +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Soletanche Bachy France S. A. S

Claimant

Aqaba Container Terminal (PVT.) Co.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 Ss. 67 and 68 / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Arbitrator X's involvement with BAM required further disclosure and gave rise to apparent bias
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal failed to address essential issues put by the parties
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal's approach to concurrent delay denied the parties a fair opportunity to address the issue

Ratio Decidendi

There was no material change in Arbitrator X's relationship with BAM requiring further disclosure; no objective risk of bias arose. The tribunal addressed all essential issues raised by the parties, including extensions of time and future performance. The approach to concurrent delay did not cause substantial injustice. The correction of the award and notification of appendices complied with ICC Rules and did not affect the tribunal's jurisdiction. All grounds for setting aside the award failed.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside arbitration award dismissed

Orders

  • All four grounds of the application are dismissed
  • No order setting aside the arbitration award