CNH Global NV v PGN Logistics Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC B8 (Comm) (26 February 2009)

CNH Global NV v PGN Logistics Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC B8 (Comm) (26 February 2009)

The arbitral tribunal lacked power under Article 29 ICC Rules to correct the award for pre-award interest, as the error was not clerical, computational, typographical, or similar. However, the correction did not cause substantial injustice to the Claimant, as reversing it would unjustly deprive the Defendant of interest and grant the Claimant an undeserved windfall. The application to set aside the correction is dismissed.

Citation
[2009] EWHC B8 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: CNH Global NV; Defendant: PGN Logistics Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Application and Cross Application Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 / Post Arbitration Award Challenge
Outcome
Application by Claimant dismissed; leave to enforce corrected award granted.
Legal Topics
Correction of Arbitral Awards, Interest on Damages, Serious Irregularity, Exceeding Powers, Substantial Injustice
Arbitration Commercial Law Correction of Arbitral Awards Interest on Damages Serious Irregularity Exceeding Powers Substantial Injustice

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

Parties

CNH Global NV

Claimant

PGN Logistics Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application and Cross Application Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 / Post Arbitration Award Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal had power under Article 29 ICC Rules to correct the 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 Article 29 ICC Rules to correct the award for pre-award interest, as the error was not clerical, computational, typographical, or similar. However, the correction did not cause substantial injustice to the Claimant, as reversing it would unjustly deprive the Defendant of interest and grant the Claimant an undeserved windfall. The application to set aside the correction is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application by Claimant dismissed; leave to enforce corrected award granted.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay Defendant three-quarters of total costs of proceedings.
  • Summary assessment of costs at £45,000.