ASA v TL & Anor

ASA v TL & Anor

The court held that the arbitrator did not commit a serious irregularity under section 68(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996. The issues of vessel class and dry dock charges were sufficiently in play during the arbitration, and the charterer had a fair opportunity to address them. The arbitrator's findings were within her remit and did not amount to procedural unfairness or substantial injustice.

Parties
Claimant: ASA; Defendant: TL; Arbitrator: Ms Clare Ambrose
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Application Under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity, Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996, Market Rate of Hire, Fiduciary Duty, Unjust Enrichment, Knowing Receipt, Dishonest Assistance
Arbitration Commercial Law Serious Irregularity Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Market Rate of Hire Fiduciary Duty Unjust Enrichment Knowing Receipt +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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ASA

Claimant

TL

Defendant

Ms Clare Ambrose

Arbitrator

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Application Under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a serious irregularity under section 68(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 by deciding on points not put to the parties or departing from common ground
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's findings on market rate of hire and dishonesty were procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arbitrator did not commit a serious irregularity under section 68(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996. The issues of vessel class and dry dock charges were sufficiently in play during the arbitration, and the charterer had a fair opportunity to address them. The arbitrator's findings were within her remit and did not amount to procedural unfairness or substantial injustice.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed