EASYBIZ INVESTMENTS V SINOGRAIN CHINATEX

[2010] EWHC 2565 (Comm), Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, Mr Justice Hamblen, 7 September 2010

Arbitration - Jurisdiction - Ten separate contracts - Single notice of arbitration given - Whether notice commenced 10 arbitrations or a single consolidated arbitration - Arbitration Act 1996, sections 14(4) and 67

Under a voyage charterparty dated 5 May 2008 between the owners, Eazybiz, and LDC, a cargo of 36,500 mt of soya bean oil was to be carried from Rosario and Paranagua to two ports in China by the vessel BTZ. Ten bills of lading were issued. The bills of lading incorporated the terms of the charterparty, which itself contained a London arbitration clause requiring arbitration in London under the terms of the Arbitration Act 1996. The default position under the 1996 Act was that each party is to appoint an arbitrator and the two are then to appoint a third who is to act as chairman. The vessel lost its rudder on or about 12 May 2008, and was towed to Cape Town for repairs. The owners declared the voyage frustrated, and required the cargo owners to take delivery of the goods in Cape Town. The cargo owners were forced to make transhipment arrangements at their own expense, and sought to recover their losses from Eazybiz. A cargo recovery agent purported to commence arbitration under all 10 bills of lading on 3 December 2009. The notice to Easybiz identified the parties and the bills of lading, and then provided: "We hereby give you notice that in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration clause as contained in the charterparty dated above, Cargo Interests, as set out above, have nominated Mr Clive Aston to act as arbitrator in respect of all disputes arising under the aforesaid bills of lading ..." It was held by Hamblen J, dismissing an appeal by Eazybiz under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 against the arbitrator's ruling on jurisdiction, that the notice of arbitration was valid under section 14(4) of the 1996 Act in that it did not seek to initiate a single consolidated arbitration of all of the claims, but that the notice was to be construed broadly as validly initiating 10 separate arbitrations.