Grindrod Shipping PTE Ltd v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd

Grindrod Shipping PTE Ltd v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd

The tribunal's reliance on financial prejudice from provision of security was 'in play' in the submissions, even if not articulated under the statutory threshold; IVS had opportunity to address all essential points, and no serious irregularity or substantial injustice was established under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996.

Parties
Claimant: Grindrod Shipping Pte Ltd t/a Island View Shipping (IVS); Defendant: Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity, Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Dismissal for Delay, Tribunal Fairness, Serious Prejudice, Provision of Security, Costs in Arbitration
Arbitration Commercial Law Maritime Law Serious Irregularity Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Dismissal for Delay Tribunal Fairness Serious Prejudice +2 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grindrod Shipping Pte Ltd t/a Island View Shipping (IVS)

Claimant

Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal failed to comply with s.33(1) Arbitration Act 1996 by not giving IVS a fair opportunity to address points relied upon for 'serious prejudice' under s.41(3)(b)
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal's reliance on financial prejudice from provision of security constituted a serious irregularity under s.68
  3. 3 Whether IVS suffered substantial injustice as a result

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal's reliance on financial prejudice from provision of security was 'in play' in the submissions, even if not articulated under the statutory threshold; IVS had opportunity to address all essential points, and no serious irregularity or substantial injustice was established under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • IVS’s challenge to the Award is dismissed
  • Had the challenge succeeded, the Award would have been remitted to the tribunal, not set aside