Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS: CONSTRUCTION AND DISTINCTIVENESS—A NEW DAWN?
Fiona Trust v. Privalov
In the current landscape of over-lengthy judgments, laden with massive quotations, Fiona Trust
v. Privalov
1
stands as a beacon, reminding us of what good appellate decisions should look like. This note will strive to match the concision of its reasoning. First, the Court of Appeal decisively pronounced a consistently liberal approach to the construction of arbitration clauses. No longer should linguistic niceties undermine a decision to refer disputes in relation to a transaction to arbitration. Secondly, the court endorsed the distinctiveness or separability of the arbitration agreement, and insisted that only a vitiating factor which tainted the arbitration provision itself should deprive the tribunal of jurisdiction. Thirdly, guidance was provided on the procedural aspects of stays pending arbitration.
The factual matrix was complex litigation concerning eight charterparties of Russian vessels, with relief claimed in the form of declarations that the charters had been validly rescinded, together with money claims based on allegations that the contracts were procured by bribery. Each contract contained an English choice of law clause, an English jurisdiction clause and clause permitting either party to elect for arbitration in accordance with the London Maritime Arbitrators’ Association rules. The jurisdiction clause referred to “Any dispute arising under this charter … ”, and the arbitration clause parasitically
CASE AND COMMENT
293