Buyuk Camlica Shipping Trading & Industry Co Inc v Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd

Buyuk Camlica Shipping Trading & Industry Co Inc v Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd

The Owners' applications under sections 68 and 69 were dismissed because the Arbitral Tribunal dealt with all essential issues except waiver, which was not properly advanced or meritorious. The Owners failed to exhaust recourse under section 57 and knowingly allowed the time limit to expire for tactical reasons. No substantial injustice was caused, and the applications were weak. Finality of arbitration awards and adherence to statutory time limits prevailed.

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
Arbitration Challenge / Commercial Court Application / Ruling on Applications Under Arbitration Act 1996 Sections 68, 69, 79, 80(5), and CPR 62.9
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Arbitration Challenge, Serious Irregularity Under Section 68, Error of Law Under Section 69, Waiver and Estoppel in Contract, Damages for Breach of Charterparty, Finality of Arbitral Awards
Arbitration Commercial Law Shipping Law Extension of Time for Arbitration Challenge Serious Irregularity Under Section 68 Error of Law Under Section 69 Waiver and Estoppel in Contract Damages for Breach of Charterparty +1 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BUYUK CAMLICA SHIPPING TRADING AND INDUSTRY CO INC

Claimant

PROGRESS BULK CARRIERS LIMITED

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge / Commercial Court Application / Ruling on Applications Under Arbitration Act 1996 Sections 68, 69, 79, 80(5), and CPR 62.9

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Owners' applications under sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 should be allowed out of time
  2. 2 Whether the Arbitral Tribunal failed to deal with all essential issues, specifically waiver of breach of description warranties
  3. 3 Whether the Owners are entitled to challenge the awards for serious irregularity or error of law

Ratio Decidendi

The Owners' applications under sections 68 and 69 were dismissed because the Arbitral Tribunal dealt with all essential issues except waiver, which was not properly advanced or meritorious. The Owners failed to exhaust recourse under section 57 and knowingly allowed the time limit to expire for tactical reasons. No substantial injustice was caused, and the applications were weak. Finality of arbitration awards and adherence to statutory time limits prevailed.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Owners' applications for extensions of time under section 80(5) and CPR 62.9 are dismissed.
  • Owners' applications to challenge the Arbitral Tribunal’s Awards under sections 68 and 69 are dismissed.