Seacrest Group Ltd v BCPR Pte Ltd Bangchak Corporation Public Company Ltd (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 3266 (Comm) (15 December 2025)

Seacrest Group Ltd v BCPR Pte Ltd Bangchak Corporation Public Company Ltd (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 3266 (Comm) (15 December 2025)

The tribunal did not commit a serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a) Arbitration Act 1996 by declining to consider Seacrest's new exchange rate argument raised for the first time in written closings, contrary to clear procedural directions. The tribunal was entitled to require an application to amend before considering new issues. No substantial injustice arose because the tribunal confirmed it would have reached the same conclusion even if the argument had been considered. The Article 38 decision refusing correction was not binding as an award, but its reasoning was admissible as evidence of the tribunal's approach.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3266 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Seacrest Group Ltd (in Provisional Liquidation in Bermuda); Defendant: BCPR Pte Ltd; Defendant: Bangchak Corporation Public Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Challenge to Arbitral Award
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996, Procedural Fairness in Arbitration, Correction of Arbitral Awards, Exchange Rate Calculation in Contractual Damages, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules
Arbitration Commercial Law Serious Irregularity Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 Procedural Fairness in Arbitration Correction of Arbitral Awards Exchange Rate Calculation in Contractual Damages UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules

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

Parties

Seacrest Group Ltd (in Provisional Liquidation in Bermuda)

Claimant

BCPR Pte Ltd

Defendant

Bangchak Corporation Public Company Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Challenge to Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal committed a serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a) Arbitration Act 1996 by failing to consider the claimant's submissions on the exchange rate issue
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal's refusal to correct the award under Article 38 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules was binding or of legal effect

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal did not commit a serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a) Arbitration Act 1996 by declining to consider Seacrest's new exchange rate argument raised for the first time in written closings, contrary to clear procedural directions. The tribunal was entitled to require an application to amend before considering new issues. No substantial injustice arose because the tribunal confirmed it would have reached the same conclusion even if the argument had been considered. The Article 38 decision refusing correction was not binding as an award, but its reasoning was admissible as evidence of the tribunal's approach.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Seacrest's challenge under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.
  • No order for correction of the award under Article 38 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.