Navigator Spirit SA v Five Oceans Salvage SA

Navigator Spirit SA v Five Oceans Salvage SA

The application was dismissed because the appeal arbitrator did not act unfairly: he put his alternative scenario to both parties, and although the specific risk of collision offshore was not expressly mentioned to Owners' counsel, it was a logical and foreseeable consequence of the scenario discussed. The arbitrator was not aware that Owners' counsel had missed the point, and there was no obligation to check. Even if there was an irregularity, it was not serious or productive of substantial injustice, as there was no realistic chance of a different outcome.

Parties
Claimant: Navigator Spirit SA; Defendant: Five Oceans Salvage SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge (section 68 Arbitration Act 1996) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity (section 68 Arbitration Act 1996), Salvage Remuneration, Fair Hearing, Procedural Fairness, Scope of Arbitral Powers
Arbitration Maritime Law Serious Irregularity (section 68 Arbitration Act 1996) Salvage Remuneration Fair Hearing Procedural Fairness Scope of Arbitral Powers

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Navigator Spirit SA

Claimant

Five Oceans Salvage SA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge (section 68 Arbitration Act 1996) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal arbitrator committed a serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by deciding the case on grounds not argued or raised in the appeal hearing
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator failed to act fairly under section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator exceeded his powers or failed to follow agreed procedure

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the appeal arbitrator did not act unfairly: he put his alternative scenario to both parties, and although the specific risk of collision offshore was not expressly mentioned to Owners' counsel, it was a logical and foreseeable consequence of the scenario discussed. The arbitrator was not aware that Owners' counsel had missed the point, and there was no obligation to check. Even if there was an irregularity, it was not serious or productive of substantial injustice, as there was no realistic chance of a different outcome.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to set aside the award on grounds of serious irregularity is refused.