GA-Hyun Chung v Silver Dry Bulk Co Ltd

GA-Hyun Chung v Silver Dry Bulk Co Ltd

The court held that the challenge fell within section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 as it concerned whether the tribunal was properly constituted and whether there was a valid arbitration agreement, both of which depend on the existence of HH at the time of the arbitration. On the proper interpretation of section...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: GA-HYUN CHUNG (as the former statutory trustee of Homer Hulbert Maritime Co. Ltd.); Defendant: Silver Dry Bulk Co. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge (section 67 Arbitration Act 1996) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitration Award
Outcome
Claim allowed; arbitration award set aside for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Corporate Dissolution, Interpretation of Foreign Law, Waiver of Jurisdictional Objections
Arbitration Company Law Conflict of Laws Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Corporate Dissolution Interpretation of Foreign Law Waiver of Jurisdictional Objections

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GA-HYUN CHUNG (as the former statutory trustee of Homer Hulbert Maritime Co. Ltd.)

Claimant

Silver Dry Bulk Co. Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge (section 67 Arbitration Act 1996) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the challenge under section 67 Arbitration Act 1996 is a challenge as to substantive jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether Homer Hulbert Maritime Co. Ltd. existed as a corporate entity on 28 October 2014 under section 105 of the Marshall Islands Business Corporations Act
  3. 3 Whether HH has waived any right to challenge the arbitrator’s jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the challenge fell within section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 as it concerned whether the tribunal was properly constituted and whether there was a valid arbitration agreement, both of which depend on the existence of HH at the time of the arbitration. On the proper interpretation of section 105 of the Marshall Islands BCA, HH ceased to exist three years after dissolution and was not revived by trusteeship under section 105(2). No valid arbitration could be commenced against a non-existent company. There was no waiver by HH as it did not participate in the arbitration, and Sinokor’s participation was limited to contesting jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; arbitration award set aside for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Declaration that the notice of arbitration dated 28 October 2014 was incapable of commencing a valid arbitration against Homer Hulbert Maritime Co. Ltd.
  • The arbitration award dated 17 January 2018 is set aside.