Hawk Shipping Ltd v Cron Navigation Ltd [2003] EWHC 1828 (Comm) (11 July 2003)

Hawk Shipping Ltd v Cron Navigation Ltd [2003] EWHC 1828 (Comm) (11 July 2003)

The arbitrator did not commit a serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996. He considered the issue of the availability of a substitute vessel, found no evidence to support the owners' contention, and was entitled to apply his commercial judgment. There was no reversal of the burden of proof, and no obligation on the arbitrator to alert the parties to evidential deficiencies. The application was, in substance, a challenge to the arbitrator's factual and legal conclusions, not to procedural regularity.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 1828 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Hawk Shipping Limited; Defendant: Cron Navigation Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Challenge to Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity in Arbitration, Measure of Damages for Wrongful Withdrawal of Vessel, Burden of Proof in Damages Claims, Available Market in Charterparty Disputes
Arbitration Commercial Law Shipping Law Serious Irregularity in Arbitration Measure of Damages for Wrongful Withdrawal of Vessel Burden of Proof in Damages Claims Available Market in Charterparty Disputes

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hawk Shipping Limited

Claimant

Cron Navigation Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 by failing to address the owners' argument on the availability of a substitute vessel
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator reversed the burden of proof regarding the existence of an available market for substitute vessels
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's approach to damages was legally correct

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator did not commit a serious irregularity under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996. He considered the issue of the availability of a substitute vessel, found no evidence to support the owners' contention, and was entitled to apply his commercial judgment. There was no reversal of the burden of proof, and no obligation on the arbitrator to alert the parties to evidential deficiencies. The application was, in substance, a challenge to the arbitrator's factual and legal conclusions, not to procedural regularity.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed