Thyssen Canada Ltd. v Mariana Maritime SA & Anor

Thyssen Canada Ltd. v Mariana Maritime SA & Anor

The claimants continued to participate in the arbitration after knowing, or being able with reasonable diligence to discover, the grounds for their objection. They deliberately chose not to pursue or disclose the new evidence before the award was issued, and only sought to challenge the award after an adverse result. The evidence on which they now rely could have been obtained before the award with reasonable diligence. Accordingly, the claimants lost the right to object under section 73, no extension of time is justified, and the application is an abuse of process.

Parties
Claimant: Thyssen Canada Ltd; Defendant: Mariana Maritime S.A & Another
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/remit Arbitral Award Under Section 68(2)(g) Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Awards, Serious Irregularity, Fraud in Arbitration, Extension of Time for Challenge, Abuse of Process
Arbitration Commercial Law Setting Aside Arbitral Awards Serious Irregularity Fraud in Arbitration Extension of Time for Challenge Abuse of Process

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

Parties

Thyssen Canada Ltd

Claimant

Mariana Maritime S.A & Another

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/remit Arbitral Award Under Section 68(2)(g) Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award was obtained by fraud or contrary to public policy under section 68(2)(g) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the claimants lost the right to object under section 73 Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether an extension of time should be granted for the section 68 application

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants continued to participate in the arbitration after knowing, or being able with reasonable diligence to discover, the grounds for their objection. They deliberately chose not to pursue or disclose the new evidence before the award was issued, and only sought to challenge the award after an adverse result. The evidence on which they now rely could have been obtained before the award with reasonable diligence. Accordingly, the claimants lost the right to object under section 73, no extension of time is justified, and the application is an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to set aside or remit the arbitral award is dismissed
  • No adjournment for trial of the issue of perjury/fraud