A v B (arbitration claim - contracual terms - foreign language)

A v B (arbitration claim - contracual terms - foreign language)

The arbitration clause did not refer specifically to LCIA arbitration but to ad hoc arbitration in London under the mechanism in Clause 24; the arbitrators had jurisdiction, and the arbitration is to proceed on LMAA Terms 2012.

Parties
Claimant: A; Defendant: B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim / Judgment on Challenge to Arbitral Award Under Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Claim allowed; arbitral award set aside.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Interpretation of Arbitration Clauses, Conflict of Contractual Provisions, Application of LMAA Terms
Arbitration Commercial Law Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Interpretation of Arbitration Clauses Conflict of Contractual Provisions Application of LMAA Terms

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Claimant

B

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim / Judgment on Challenge to Arbitral Award Under Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration clause in the Charterparty referred disputes to the LCIA or to ad hoc arbitration in London
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrators had jurisdiction to determine the dispute
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration was to proceed on LMAA Terms

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitration clause did not refer specifically to LCIA arbitration but to ad hoc arbitration in London under the mechanism in Clause 24; the arbitrators had jurisdiction, and the arbitration is to proceed on LMAA Terms 2012.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; arbitral award set aside.

Orders

  • The arbitrators’ award is set aside.
  • It is determined that the arbitrators have jurisdiction.