Dera Commercial Estate v Derya Inc

Dera Commercial Estate v Derya Inc

The tribunal did not err in law in treating the contractual one-year limitation period as the relevant yardstick for inordinate delay under s.41(3), and a claim can be struck out for inordinate delay even if particularised within the statutory period. However, the tribunal erred in law in holding that a geographic deviation does not preclude reliance on the one-year time bar; under binding authority, it does if the innocent party elects to terminate. The tribunal did not misapply the law on the period to be considered for delay, nor did it misapply the burden or standard of proof. There was no apparent bias.

Parties
Claimant: Dera Commercial Estate; Defendant: Derya Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge/appeal / High Court Judgment on S.68 and S.69 Arbitration Act 1996 Challenge
Outcome
Claimant's challenge under s.68 dismissed; partial success on s.69 (geographic deviation point); all other grounds dismissed.
Legal Topics
Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay, Limitation Periods, Hague Rules, Geographical Deviation, Burden and Standard of Proof, Apparent Bias
Arbitration Shipping and Admiralty Contract Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay Limitation Periods Hague Rules Geographical Deviation Burden and Standard of Proof +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dera Commercial Estate

Claimant

Derya Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge/appeal / High Court Judgment on S.68 and S.69 Arbitration Act 1996 Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claim particularised within the statutory limitation period can be struck out for inordinate delay where the parties have contracted for a shorter period
  2. 2 Whether a geographic deviation precludes a carrier from relying on the one-year time bar under Article III Rule 6 of the Hague Rules
  3. 3 Whether the period between accrual of cause of action and expiry of contractual time limit is relevant to inordinate delay under s.41(3)

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal did not err in law in treating the contractual one-year limitation period as the relevant yardstick for inordinate delay under s.41(3), and a claim can be struck out for inordinate delay even if particularised within the statutory period. However, the tribunal erred in law in holding that a geographic deviation does not preclude reliance on the one-year time bar; under binding authority, it does if the innocent party elects to terminate. The tribunal did not misapply the law on the period to be considered for delay, nor did it misapply the burden or standard of proof. There was no apparent bias.

Court Disposition

Claimant's challenge under s.68 dismissed; partial success on s.69 (geographic deviation point); all other grounds dismissed.

Orders

  • Parties to draw up an order reflecting the findings and conclusions; costs and consequential matters to be agreed if possible.