LJ Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV

LJ Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV

No valid appointment of the arbitrator occurred because the acceptance was not communicated to the offeror within a reasonable time, and the misdirection of the acceptance fax was the fault of the owners. The circumstances did not justify an extension of time under Section 12(3)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996, as the error and subsequent omission were not outside the reasonable contemplation of the parties nor was it just to extend time.

Parties
Claimant: L. J. Korbetis; Defendant: Transgrain Shipping BV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Referral / Judgment on Preliminary Issue (jurisdiction of Arbitrator and Extension of Time)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Appointment of Arbitrator, Time Bar Clauses, Offer and Acceptance, Extension of Time Under Arbitration Act 1996
Arbitration Contract Law Shipping Law Appointment of Arbitrator Time Bar Clauses Offer and Acceptance Extension of Time Under Arbitration Act 1996

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L. J. Korbetis

Claimant

Transgrain Shipping BV

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Referral / Judgment on Preliminary Issue (jurisdiction of Arbitrator and Extension of Time)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an arbitrator was validly appointed under the charterparty
  2. 2 Whether an extension of time should be granted for such appointment

Ratio Decidendi

No valid appointment of the arbitrator occurred because the acceptance was not communicated to the offeror within a reasonable time, and the misdirection of the acceptance fax was the fault of the owners. The circumstances did not justify an extension of time under Section 12(3)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996, as the error and subsequent omission were not outside the reasonable contemplation of the parties nor was it just to extend time.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed