Bulfracht (Cyprus) Ltd. v Boneset Shipping Company Ltd. 'MV Pamphilos', Court of Appeal - Commercial Court, November 07, 2002, [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 681,[2002] EWHC 2292 (Comm),[2002] 2 LLR 681

Extract

---

Bulfracht (Cyprus) Ltd. v Boneset Shipping Company Ltd. 'MV Pamphilos', Court of Appeal - Commercial Court, November 07, 2002, [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 681,[2002] EWHC 2292 (Comm),[2002] 2 LLR 681

18

Case No: 2002 Folio No. 689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

COMMERCIAL COURT

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. [2002] EWHC 2292 (Comm)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 7 November 2002

Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE COLMAN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Simon Croall (instructed by Waterson Hicks) for the Claimant

Mr Arshad Ghaffer (instructed by Shaw Lloyd & Co) for the Defendant

Hearing dates : 18 October 2002

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Approved Judgment

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

.............................

Colman J

Mr Justice Colman :

Introduction

By an arbitration award made on 12 June 2002 the claimant shipowners recovered US$52,924.23 on their claim for the balance of hire and interest on it due under a trip time charter of MV PAMPHILOS on the New York Produce Exchange form but failed in their claim that the charterers were in breach of their contractual duty to re-deliver the vessel in like good order and condition. The arbitrators, appointed under an ad hoc arbitration agreement, were divided in their views. In his dissenting award Mr Christopher Moss, who is one of the most experienced maritime arbitrators in London, described the conduct of the parties before the hearing as ``a complete travesty of the process of commercial arbitration'' and ``an exercise in mindless antagonism''. He said that the way in which the case was conducted made it ``impossible for the essentially straightforward issue to be determined fairly''.

The arbitration agreement expressly provided that the arbitrators should be ``commercial/shipping men''.

The charterers now have two applications before the court:

1. for an order setting aside or remitting the award under section 68(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the grounds of serious irregularity affecting the proceedings or the award;

2. permission to appeal the Award under section 69(2)(b) of the 1996 Act on a question of law.

It has been agreed that if leave to appeal is given this court should go on to determine the substantive appeal at the same hearing.

The logical approach to multiple applications of this kind is almost invariably to determine the application to set aside or remit for serious irregularity first and to consid...

See the full content of this document

---