Fimbank Plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd [2020] EWHC 1765 (Comm) (03 July 2020)

Fimbank Plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd [2020] EWHC 1765 (Comm) (03 July 2020)

The circumstances leading to missing the time bar were not outside the reasonable contemplation of the parties, as they amounted to mistake and negligence compounded by innocently misleading correspondence, but not to a widely shared misunderstanding or practice. Only one communication was attributable to the respondent, and while it contributed to confusion, the claimant's failure to clarify or act prudently was the predominant cause. No extension of time was justified under s.12(3)(a) or (b).

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1765 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: FIMBANK PLC; Defendant: KCH SHIPPING CO LTD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.12 / Judgment on Application to Extend Time for Commencing Arbitration
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Arbitration, Time Bar Under Hague/hague Visby Rules, Misdelivery of Cargo, Authority and Agency in Contractual Chains
Arbitration Shipping Commercial Law Extension of Time for Arbitration Time Bar Under Hague/hague Visby Rules Misdelivery of Cargo Authority and Agency in Contractual Chains

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FIMBANK PLC

Claimant

KCH SHIPPING CO LTD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.12 / Judgment on Application to Extend Time for Commencing Arbitration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether circumstances were outside reasonable contemplation under s.12(3)(a) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether conduct of respondent made it unjust to hold claimant to strict terms under s.12(3)(b)
  3. 3 Attribution of third-party correspondence to respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The circumstances leading to missing the time bar were not outside the reasonable contemplation of the parties, as they amounted to mistake and negligence compounded by innocently misleading correspondence, but not to a widely shared misunderstanding or practice. Only one communication was attributable to the respondent, and while it contributed to confusion, the claimant's failure to clarify or act prudently was the predominant cause. No extension of time was justified under s.12(3)(a) or (b).

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • No extension of time granted for commencing arbitration against KCH Shipping Co Ltd