Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
EXTENDING TIME FOR ARBITRATION
Comdel Commodities Ltd. v. Siporex Trade S.A. (No. 2)
There are some cases in which once the decision has been reached it seems so obviously right that it is surprising that anyone could ever have reached the opposite conclusion. Comdel Commodities Ltd. v. Siporex Trade S.A. (No. 2),1 decided by the House of Lords, is such a case.
The plaintiffs bought from the defendants 11,000 tonnes of cotton seed oil and 21,000 tonnes of “edible fancy tallow”. Each of the contracts incorporated the Rules of Arbitration and Appeal of the Federation of Oils Seeds and Fats Association. These Rules provided for disputes to be decided by arbitration and, by r. 2(b), that claims should be notified within certain specified periods. Rule 2(d) was as follows:
In the event of non-compliance with any of the preceding provisions of this Rule, claims shall be deemed to be waived and absolutely barred unless the arbitrators, the umpire or Board of Appeal referred to in these Rules shall, in their absolute discretion, otherwise determine.
Disputes arose under the contracts. In one of these Comdel gave notice of arbitration after expiry of the relevant period provided for in the FOSFA Rules, The first instance arbitrators and the Board of Appeal provided for in the Rules refused to extend the time. Comdel then applied to the court for an extension under s. 27 of the Arbitration Act 1950. This section is as follows:
Where the terms of an agreement to refer future disputes to arbitration provide that any claims to which the agreement applies shall be barred unless notice to appoint an arbitrator is appointed or some other step to commence arbitration proceedings is taken within a time fixed by the agreement, and a dispute arises to which the agreement applies, the High Court, if it is of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case undue hardship would otherwise be caused, and notwithstanding that the time so fixed has expired, may, on such terms, if any, as the justice of the case may require, but without prejudice to the provisions of any enactment limiting the time for the commencement of arbitration proceedings, extend the time for such period as it thinks proper.
Siporex argued that s. 27 did not apply where, as in the present case, the arbi-
15