ASA v TL & Anor [2020] EWHC 2270 (Comm) (20 August 2020)

ASA v TL & Anor [2020] EWHC 2270 (Comm) (20 August 2020)

The arbitrator did not commit a serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a) Arbitration Act 1996 because the issues of vessel class and market rate, as well as the facts surrounding the dry dock charges, were in play during the arbitration, and the parties had a fair opportunity to address them. The arbitrator's findings...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2270 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: ASA; First Defendant: TL; Defendant: Ms Clare Ambrose
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Challenge / High Court Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Procedural Fairness in Arbitration, Market Rate Determination in Charterparty, Fiduciary Duties and Conflicts of Interest, Unjust Enrichment, Knowing Receipt, Dishonest Assistance, Limitation Act Time Bar
Arbitration Commercial Law Shipping Law Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Procedural Fairness in Arbitration Market Rate Determination in Charterparty Fiduciary Duties and Conflicts of Interest Unjust Enrichment +3 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

ASA

Claimant

TL

First Defendant

Ms Clare Ambrose

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Challenge / High Court Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a) Arbitration Act 1996 by deciding on points not put to the parties or departing from common ground without notice
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's findings on market rate of hire and vessel class were procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's findings on dishonesty regarding dry dock charges were procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator did not commit a serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a) Arbitration Act 1996 because the issues of vessel class and market rate, as well as the facts surrounding the dry dock charges, were in play during the arbitration, and the parties had a fair opportunity to address them. The arbitrator's findings were within her remit and did not amount to procedural unfairness.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 is refused
  • No order for further relief