MATALUNI SPA v INERCO TRADE SA

MATALUNI SPA v INERCO TRADE SA

The court held that although the contamination was not reasonably discoverable before the expiry of the time limits (a circumstance outside the reasonable contemplation of the parties), the significant and culpable delay after the Claimants became aware of the contamination, and after being put on notice of the time bar, meant it would not be just to extend time. The arbitral tribunal’s refusal to extend time was not unlawful or irrational, and party autonomy required the court to respect the tribunal’s decision. No error of law was established to justify permission to appeal.

Parties
Claimant: SOS Corporación Alimentaria, S.A.; Claimant: Mataluni SpA; Defendant: Inerco Trade SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Related Application / Judgment on Applications for Extension of Time and Permission to Appeal Arbitral Awards
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Arbitration, Permission to Appeal Arbitral Award, Time Bar in Arbitration, Party Autonomy in Arbitration, Interpretation of Arbitration Rules
Arbitration Commercial Law Extension of Time for Arbitration Permission to Appeal Arbitral Award Time Bar in Arbitration Party Autonomy in Arbitration Interpretation of Arbitration Rules

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SOS Corporación Alimentaria, S.A.

Claimant

Mataluni SpA

Claimant

Inerco Trade SA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Related Application / Judgment on Applications for Extension of Time and Permission to Appeal Arbitral 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 proceedings
  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 erred in law in exercising its discretion to refuse an extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the contamination was not reasonably discoverable before the expiry of the time limits (a circumstance outside the reasonable contemplation of the parties), the significant and culpable delay after the Claimants became aware of the contamination, and after being put on notice of the time bar, meant it would not be just to extend time. The arbitral tribunal’s refusal to extend time was not unlawful or irrational, and party autonomy required the court to respect the tribunal’s decision. No error of law was established to justify permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Claimants' application for permission to appeal under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.
  • Claimants' application for extension of time under Section 12 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.