Martrade Shipping & Transport GmbH v United Enterprises Corporation
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HON. MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL
Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- Commercial Law
- Conflict of Laws
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case examines the applicability of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 to a charterparty under English law with London arbitration. The tribunal awarded interest to Owners for unpaid hire, but Charterers appealed based on a lack of significant connection with England required by s.12(1) of the 1998 Act. The court ruled that the Act did not apply, emphasizing that factors such as arbitration clauses and the use of English language were insufficient to establish a significant connection to England. The court also applied Rome Convention Article 4, determining that the governing law would not have been English in the absence of the parties' choice.
Judgment
The Hon. Mr Justice Popplewell:
Introduction
This is an appeal pursuant to s. 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 from the Second Partial Final Award of William Robertson and Bruce Harris dated 10 September 2013, as further explained and clarified, pursuant to s. 57(3) of the 1996 Act and/or paragraph 25(a)(ii) of the LMAA Rules, by an email dated 11 October 2013 (“the Award”). It raises a short point in relation to the applicability of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 to charterparties providing for English law and London arbitration. It is a point which the tribunal described as arising in an increasing number of cases and upon which the Court’s guidance would be welcomed.
The Issue
At the material time the M/V Wisdom C (“the vessel”) was owned by the Defendant, a Marshall Islands company (“the Owners”). The vessel was registered in Panama and managed by a Liberian company registered in Greece. The vessel was chartered by the Owners to the Claimant charterers (“the Charterers”) for a time charter trip via the Mediterranean/Black Sea under a charterparty on an amended NYPE form dated 2 July 2005. The Charterers are a German company. The vessel was to be placed at the disposal of the Charterers on passing Aden, and was to be redelivered at one safe port or passing Muscat outbound/Singapore range in Charterers’ option. In the event the vessel loaded cargoes of steel products at Tuapse (Russia), Odessa (Ukraine) and Constanza (Romania) and discharged them at Jebel Ali (UAE), Karachi (Pakistan) and Mumbai (India). Hire was payable in US$ to a bank account in Greece. The broker named in the charterparty as entitled to commission was Optima Shipbrokers Ltd who I was told were Greek. The charterparty recorded that it was made and concluded in Antwerp.
An additional typed clause of the charterparty provided for English law and London arbitration in the following terms:
“ Clause 48 – Arbitration
All disputes arising out of this contract which cannot be amicably resolved shall be referred to arbitration in London. Unless the panics agreed upon sole arbitrator the reference shall be to 2 (two) arbitrators, one to be appointed by each parties (sic). The arbitrators shall be members of the LMAA, and the umpire, if appointed shall be a legal man, and shall be Members of the London Maritime arbitrators’ Association otherwise qualified by experience to deal with commercial shipping disputes.
The contract is governed by English Law and