Navios International Inc v Sangamon Transportation Group

Navios International Inc v Sangamon Transportation Group

The application for further reasons under section 70(4) must be dismissed because it was made too late, is not necessary for the court to properly consider the appeal, would require reopening evidence, and would cause disproportionate costs and delay contrary to the policy of finality in arbitration awards.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Navios International Inc; Defendant: Sangamon Transportation Group; Respondent: STX Pan Ocean Co Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal / Application Under Section 70(4) Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Remission for Further Reasons, Construction of Charterparty Clauses, US Gross Transportation Tax Liability
Arbitration Commercial Law Remission for Further Reasons Construction of Charterparty Clauses US Gross Transportation Tax Liability

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Navios International Inc

Claimant

Sangamon Transportation Group

Defendant

STX Pan Ocean Co Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Appeal / Application Under Section 70(4) Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order the tribunal to state further reasons under section 70(4) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether further findings on US Gross Transportation Tax liability are necessary for the appeal
  3. 3 Timeliness and appropriateness of the application for further reasons

Ratio Decidendi

The application for further reasons under section 70(4) must be dismissed because it was made too late, is not necessary for the court to properly consider the appeal, would require reopening evidence, and would cause disproportionate costs and delay contrary to the policy of finality in arbitration awards.

Court Disposition

application dismissed