SOS Corporación Alimentaria, S.A. & Anor v Inerco Trade SA [2010] EWHC 162 (Comm) (08 February 2010)

SOS Corporación Alimentaria, S.A. & Anor v Inerco Trade SA [2010] EWHC 162 (Comm) (08 February 2010)

The court held that although the mineral oil contamination was not reasonably contemplated by the parties and could justify extension of time for some contractual time limits, the significant and culpable delay by the Claimants after discovering the contamination and after being on notice of the time bar, coupled with the arbitral Board's reasoned refusal to extend time, meant it would not be just to grant an extension. The Board's exercise of discretion was not unlawful, and no error of law was established to justify permission to appeal.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 162 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: SOS Corporación Alimentaria, S.A. (formerly Sos Cuetara S.A.); Claimant: Mataluni SpA; Defendant: Inerco Trade SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Related Court Application / Judgment on Applications for Extension of Time and Permission to Appeal Arbitration Awards
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Arbitration, Arbitration Act 1996 Section 12, Permission to Appeal Arbitral Award, Commodity Contracts, Time Bar in Arbitration, Party Autonomy in Arbitration
Arbitration Commercial Law Extension of Time for Arbitration Arbitration Act 1996 Section 12 Permission to Appeal Arbitral Award Commodity Contracts Time Bar in Arbitration Party Autonomy in Arbitration

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SOS Corporación Alimentaria, S.A. (formerly Sos Cuetara S.A.)

Claimant

Mataluni SpA

Claimant

Inerco Trade SA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Related Court Application / Judgment on Applications for Extension of Time and Permission to Appeal Arbitration Awards

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an extension of time under Section 12 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for commencing arbitration
  2. 2 Whether permission to appeal should be granted under Section 69(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1996 against the arbitral awards
  3. 3 Whether the arbitral tribunal's exercise of discretion to refuse extension of time was unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the mineral oil contamination was not reasonably contemplated by the parties and could justify extension of time for some contractual time limits, the significant and culpable delay by the Claimants after discovering the contamination and after being on notice of the time bar, coupled with the arbitral Board's reasoned refusal to extend time, meant it would not be just to grant an extension. The Board's exercise of discretion was not unlawful, and no error of law was established to justify permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extension of time under Section 12 of the Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed
  • Application for permission to appeal under Section 69(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed