Tame Shipping Ltd v Easy Navigation Ltd

Tame Shipping Ltd v Easy Navigation Ltd

The court held that while the parties were contractually bound not to use the arbitrator's confidential reasons, the court itself was not so bound and could admit such reasons in evidence if necessary to determine an allegation of serious irregularity. However, in this case, there was no serious irregularity in the arbitral process, and the Buyers' application was an improper attempt to challenge the arbitrator's conclusion on a question of law. The application was therefore dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Tame Shipping Ltd; Defendant: Easy Navigation Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Application Under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Confidentiality of Arbitrator's Reasons, Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996, Remission of Arbitral Awards, Party Autonomy in Arbitration, Use of Privileged Reasons in Court
Arbitration Commercial Law Confidentiality of Arbitrator's Reasons Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 Remission of Arbitral Awards Party Autonomy in Arbitration Use of Privileged Reasons in Court

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

Parties

Tame Shipping Ltd

Claimant

Easy Navigation Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Application Under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parties may rely on confidential arbitrator's reasons in support of an application under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether there was a serious irregularity in the arbitral process causing substantial injustice

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while the parties were contractually bound not to use the arbitrator's confidential reasons, the court itself was not so bound and could admit such reasons in evidence if necessary to determine an allegation of serious irregularity. However, in this case, there was no serious irregularity in the arbitral process, and the Buyers' application was an improper attempt to challenge the arbitrator's conclusion on a question of law. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed