Buyuk Camlica Shipping Trading & Industry Co Inc v Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd [2010] EWHC 442 (Comm) (04 March 2010)

Buyuk Camlica Shipping Trading & Industry Co Inc v Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd [2010] EWHC 442 (Comm) (04 March 2010)

The tribunal did not fail to deal with any essential issue except possibly the Owners' waiver defence, which was not properly advanced and was wholly unmeritorious; thus, no substantial injustice arose. The Owners were barred from challenging the award under s.68 and s.69 due to failure to exhaust recourse under s.57 and to comply with time limits. Even if there was an irregularity, it was not serious or causative of substantial injustice. The application was dismissed.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 442 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: BUYUK CAMLICA SHIPPING TRADING AND INDUSTRY CO INC; Defendant: PROGRESS BULK CARRIERS LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 68, 69, and 79 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Applications under sections 68, 69, and 79 of the Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Arbitration Award Challenge, Serious Irregularity (s.68 Arbitration Act 1996), Appeal on Point of Law (s.69 Arbitration Act 1996), Extension of Time (cpr 62.9, S.80 Arbitration Act 1996), Waiver and Estoppel, Damages for Breach of Charterparty, Misdescription of Vessel, Safe Port/berth Warranties
Arbitration Shipping Law Contract Law Arbitration Award Challenge Serious Irregularity (s.68 Arbitration Act 1996) Appeal on Point of Law (s.69 Arbitration Act 1996) Extension of Time (cpr 62.9, S.80 Arbitration Act 1996) Waiver and Estoppel +3 more

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BUYUK CAMLICA SHIPPING TRADING AND INDUSTRY CO INC

Claimant

PROGRESS BULK CARRIERS LIMITED

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 68, 69, and 79 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal failed to deal with all essential issues (specifically waiver) under s.68(2)(d) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal erred in law in awarding damages for breach of oral agreements to carry cargoes under s.69 Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether the Owners are precluded from challenging the award due to failure to exhaust recourse under s.57 Arbitration Act 1996 and time limits under s.70(3) Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal did not fail to deal with any essential issue except possibly the Owners' waiver defence, which was not properly advanced and was wholly unmeritorious; thus, no substantial injustice arose. The Owners were barred from challenging the award under s.68 and s.69 due to failure to exhaust recourse under s.57 and to comply with time limits. Even if there was an irregularity, it was not serious or causative of substantial injustice. The application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications under sections 68, 69, and 79 of the Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed.

Orders

  • Owners' applications under s.68 and s.69 Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed.
  • Application for extension of time under s.79 Arbitration Act 1996 refused.