Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
ARBITRATION LAW
Matthew McGhee*
[Arbitration Act 1996: Hereafter “AA”. Unless otherwise stated, references to “the Act” or to “s.” are to this Act.]
CASES
22. A v B1
Arbitration agreement—jurisdiction—applicable arbitral rules—construction of arbitration agreement
The parties had entered into a voyage charterparty which was divided into Part I and Part II, expressly providing that Part I took precedence in the event of conflict. The charter was written in Russian and provided for English governing law. Part I included an arbitration clause in Russian which was agreed to read “Arbitration proceedings—London international arbitration court, in accordance with the laws of Great Britain …”. Part II included a mechanism for the parties to appoint arbitrators. O commenced arbitration proceedings in London by appointing an arbitrator on London Maritime Arbitration Association (“LMAA”) Terms 2012. C appointed its own arbitrator, also on those terms.
C challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction under AA, s.31, arguing that there was no such body as the “London international arbitration court”. The tribunal took advice from Russian-speaking solicitors, who advised that, if the words “London Court of International Arbitration” (ie, the LCIA) was translated into Russian, then it would follow the same word order and capitalisation as that in the parties’ arbitration agreement. The tribunal held that the arbitration agreement expressly required that the arbitration be under the LCIA rules, and thus referred to LCIA arbitrators. The tribunal therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction. O applied to set aside the tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction.
Decision: Application granted.
Held: (1) “London international arbitration court” was a reference to any international arbitral body in London, which could include either the LMAA or the LCIA. The translation did not precisely mirror “London Court of International Arbitration”. If LCIA arbitration was required, the appointment mechanism in Part II was rendered superfluous. It would be unusual to have a charterparty claim heard in the LCIA.
Arbitration Law
17