CNH Global NV v PGN Logistics Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 977 (Comm) (26 February, 2009)

CNH Global NV v PGN Logistics Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 977 (Comm) (26 February, 2009)

The arbitral tribunal lacked power under ICC Article 29 to correct the award for pre-award interest, as the error was not clerical, computational, typographical or similar. The correction constituted a serious irregularity under s.68(2)(b) Arbitration Act 1996, but substantial injustice would result from reversing the correction, as it would deprive the Defendant of interest rightly due and grant the Claimant an undeserved windfall. The application to set aside the correction is dismissed.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 977 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: CNH Global N.V.; Defendant: PGN Logistics Limited; Defendant: Graglia SRL; Defendant: Wincanton Trans European Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 Application and Cross Application
Outcome
Application by Claimant dismissed; award as corrected stands
Legal Topics
Correction of Arbitration Awards, Interest on Damages, Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996, Procedural Powers of Arbitral Tribunal
Arbitration Commercial Law Correction of Arbitration Awards Interest on Damages Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 Procedural Powers of Arbitral Tribunal

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

Parties

CNH Global N.V.

Claimant

PGN Logistics Limited

Defendant

Graglia SRL

Defendant

Wincanton Trans European Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 Application and Cross Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal had power under ICC Article 29 to correct its award to allow pre-award interest
  2. 2 Whether the correction constituted a clerical, computational, typographical or similar error
  3. 3 Whether the correction amounted to a serious irregularity under s.68(2)(b) Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitral tribunal lacked power under ICC Article 29 to correct the award for pre-award interest, as the error was not clerical, computational, typographical or similar. The correction constituted a serious irregularity under s.68(2)(b) Arbitration Act 1996, but substantial injustice would result from reversing the correction, as it would deprive the Defendant of interest rightly due and grant the Claimant an undeserved windfall. The application to set aside the correction is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application by Claimant dismissed; award as corrected stands

Orders

  • Leave to enforce the corrected award
  • Claimant to pay Defendant three-quarters of total costs, summarily assessed at £45,000