Nestor Maritime SA v Sea Anchor Shipping Co Ltd [2012] EWHC 996 (Comm) (20 April 2012)

Nestor Maritime SA v Sea Anchor Shipping Co Ltd [2012] EWHC 996 (Comm) (20 April 2012)

The Sellers could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the alleged fraud before or during the arbitration. There were grounds to suspect fabrication of the survey measurements, and the Sellers failed to pursue obvious lines of enquiry or call key witnesses. The delay in bringing the application was excessive...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 996 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Nestor Maritime S.A.; Defendant: Sea Anchor Shipping Co. Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Application for Extension of Time to Challenge Arbitral Award Under S.68(2)(g) Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Arbitration Challenge, Serious Irregularity Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996, Fraud in Arbitration, Finality of Arbitral Awards, Reasonable Diligence Under S.73 Arbitration Act 1996
Arbitration Commercial Law Extension of Time for Arbitration Challenge Serious Irregularity Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 Fraud in Arbitration Finality of Arbitral Awards Reasonable Diligence Under S.73 Arbitration Act 1996

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nestor Maritime S.A.

Claimant

Sea Anchor Shipping Co. Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Application for Extension of Time to Challenge Arbitral Award Under S.68(2)(g) Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an extension of time under s.80(5) Arbitration Act 1996 and CPR 62.9 for a challenge under s.68(2)(g) based on alleged fraud
  2. 2 Whether the applicant could with reasonable diligence have discovered the alleged fraud prior to or during the arbitration, as required by s.73(1)(d) Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The Sellers could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the alleged fraud before or during the arbitration. There were grounds to suspect fabrication of the survey measurements, and the Sellers failed to pursue obvious lines of enquiry or call key witnesses. The delay in bringing the application was excessive and not justified. The application is barred by s.73(1)(d) Arbitration Act 1996 and, even if not, the court would not exercise its discretion to extend time given the lack of expedition and the policy of finality in arbitration.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to challenge arbitral award under s.68(2)(g) Arbitration Act 1996 refused