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.

In Briggs Marine Contractors Ltd v Bakkafrost Scotland Ltd [2023] ScotCS CSOH_6, a decision of Lord Braid in the Outer House of the Court of Session, the question was whether an arbitration clause in a written contract continued to apply to a dispute under an alleged replacement contract so as to justify a stay of proceedings brought on the replacement contract. Although the case was heard in Scotland, the relevant contracts were governed by English law.

Henshaw J in a lengthy and comprehensive judgment in Hays v Bloomfield Investments LLC [2022] EWHC 1648 (Comm) has considered the circumstances in which a failure to bring an appeal against an arbitration award within the 28 days permitted by section 70(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 should be excused by the grant of an extension of time under section 80(5).

In Buheiry v VistaJet Ltd [2022] EWHC 2998 (Comm) Jacobs J considered two separate issues which were claimed to go the jurisdiction of the tribunal: the validity of an assignment of rights to the claimant in the arbitration, and the correct process for commencing the arbitration.