Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
ABANDONMENT OF ARBITRATION BY SILENCE OR INACTIVITY
Food Corporation of India v. Antclizo Shipping Corporation (The Antclizo)
In the May 1987 issue of this Quarterly the present writer considered the first instance decision of Staughton, J., in Excomm Ltd. v. Guan Guan Shipping (Pte.) Ltd. (The Golden Bear).1 Since the preparation of that note the subject of abandonment of arbitration by a contract arising from silence or inactivity has been further reviewed and pronounced unsatisfactory by the Court of Appeal in The Antclizo.2
Once again the court lamented the present state of the law (as discerned from a not always unwavering line of authority) and urged review either by Parliament or the House of Lords. The facts and the judgments are briefly summarized in this note, and generally speak for themselves, although there are some obscurities.
1. [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 330; [1987] 2 LMCLQ 155.
2. 7 April 1987. See also Cia. Naviera Sea Orient S.A. v. Gebr Var Weelde Scheepvartkantoor N.V., 21 May 1987 (C.A.).
263