Transgrain Shipping BV v Deiulemar Shipping SpA & Anor
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TEARE
Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- Maritime Law
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, the vessel ELENI P's hijacking led to arbitration disputes among its owners and charterers. The tribunal's award determined the applicable arbitration clause and the identity of the arbitrators. The court held that the BIMCO Arbitration Clauses requiring three arbitrators were applicable, thus dismissing Transgrain's section 67 application.
Judgment
Mr. Justice Teare :
Between May and December 2010 the vessel ELENI P was hijacked by pirates. Unsurprisingly that event has given rise to disputes between those involved in owning and chartering the vessel. By March 2014 the resolution of those disputes had progressed as far as asking the arbitral tribunal to make findings as to who the arbitrators were and who the parties were. The tribunal helpfully determined those questions by an award dated 20 March 2014. This is an application pursuant to section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to set aside that award on the grounds that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make it.
The charters, the arbitration clauses and the commencement of the arbitration
The Second defendant, Eleni Shipping Limited (“Eleni”), is the registered owner of the vessel ELENI P. Eleni time chartered the vessel to the First Defendant, Deiulemar Shipping SpA, (“Deiulemar”) by a charter dated 8 May 2009. Deiulemar sub-chartered the vessel to the Claimant, Transgrain Shipping BV (“Transgrain”) by a charter dated 15 October 2009. Transgrain sub-sub-chartered the vessel to Vista Shipping Ltd. (“Vista”) by a charter dated 20 April 2010. The charterparties were on back to back terms save for the period and the rate of hire.
Those terms provided for arbitration in London but there were two sets of arbitration terms which, in some respects, were inconsistent with each other. Thus one set of terms (clause 75) provided for a tribunal of two arbitrators and an umpire in the event of disagreement and another set of terms (the BIMCO arbitration clauses) provided for three arbitrators. In addition, whilst clause 75 provided that if party A commenced arbitration and appointed an arbitrator but party B failed to appoint an arbitrator then party A could appoint an arbitrator on behalf of party B, the BIMCO arbitration clauses provided that in such an event party A could appoint its arbitrator as sole arbitrator. Also, clause 75 contained a substantive time bar (claims to be made within 13 months of redelivery) whilst the BIMCO arbitration clauses did not. It is necessary to set out the competing terms of the charterparty:
“17. That should any dispute arise between Owners and the Charterers, See Clause 75
…………
Additional Clauses 29 to 100, both inclusive, as attached,
The General Average Clause, and Arbitration Clauses, New Jason Clause, Both to Blame Collision Clause, Himalaya Clause, General Clause Paramount, US/Canadian Clause Paramount