Arbitration Law Monthly

The issue in DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v Gemini Ocean Shipping Co Ltd (The Newcastle Express) [2022] EWCA Civ 1555; [2023] 1 Lloyd's Rep 245 was whether a finding by an arbitrator that there was a binding charterparty containing an arbitration clause was capable of challenge on jurisdictional grounds. Jacobs J at first instance ([2022] 1 Lloyd's Rep 575) held that the charterparty and the arbitration clause were inseparable and that a jurisdictional challenge under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 was available.

The facts of E-Star Shipping and Trading Co Ltd v Delta Corp Shipping Ltd [2022] EWHC 3165 (Comm) were relatively unusual, and required Jacobs J to consider interesting questions relating to the ability of the English court to grant relief where there had been a foreign judgment in proceedings that could have been conducted in arbitration in England. In the event the matter proved to be straightforward, but there are useful comments in the judgment on the operation of the court's power under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to make an order preserving assets.

In Global Aerospares Ltd v Airest AS [2023] EWHC 1430 (Comm) the applicant applied to the court for the appointment of an arbitrator on the ground that the agreed appointment process had failed. The reason for the failure was the applicant's disregard of the agreed method of service of notices including any notice of arbitration. The application was refused.

In Northumbrian Water Ltd v Doosan Enpure Ltd and Another [2022] EWHC 2881 (TCC) O'Farrell J confirmed that the decision of an adjudicator in a construction dispute is binding on the parties and thus enforceable if there is no challenge to the decision on jurisdictional or natural justice grounds. The right of a party to challenge the substance of the decision in arbitration does not, therefore, justify a stay of enforcement proceedings under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996.