Saturday, June 22, 2024

Sample Category Title

[t]he legal burden of proof is upon the owner to show that the charterer breached the terms of the charterparty .. Once the owner can show prima facie that the repairs were necessitated by the charterer’s breach, the evidential burden of proof would shift to the charterer.

– Singapore, 2021, maintenance & repairs

[i]t seemed to the tribunal that there was a sufficiently strong prima facie case of deficiency vis-à-vis the warranted speed that the owners needed to show positively, rather than through expert inference, ..that there was no breach of the warranty.

– London, 2011, Speed claim

The arbitrators were satisfied that they had power under section 14 of the Arbitration Act 1950 to make interim awards as to quantum as well as to liability, and that such power was customarily exercised by London maritime arbitrators in analogous circumstances.

– London, 1982, demurrage

Notwithstanding the tribunal’s suspicions on the point, it was for the charterers to shift the burden of proof onto the owners by showing at least prima facie evidence of a breach of contract, and they had not achieved that. Accordingly that counterclaim had to fail.

– London, 2007, Unseaworthy-freight

It was always difficult to assess costs, especially when a paying party was not represented. There was no duty on a tribunal to make a case for an absent party. But the tribunal nevertheless had to look carefully at what was claimed so as to do its best to award a reasonable amount.

– London, 2014

Small Claims Procedure was intended as a relatively cheap and speedy way of resolving small disputes. For it to work properly, it was important that the parties kept to the laid down procedure, which limited the exchanges to three sets of submissions.

– London, 2016, Procedural irregularities

The construction of subsection 31(1) was that the “objection” which a party took had to be specific. A party’s first step in the proceedings to contest the matter was any step which did more than object to jurisdiction. The respondents failed on both those counts

– London, 2003, repudiation

[i]t was common ground that the Additional Parties were not parties to the charterparties and that there were no arbitration agreements between the Additional Parties and the owners. In those circumstances the present tribunal could not possibly have jurisdiction.

– London, 2016

[t]he respondent’s first ground of objection would be rejected on the basis that where a contract contained a relevant arbitration clause the liquidation of a party could not affect the jurisdiction of a tribunal properly appointed under that clause.

– London, 2021, bunker claim

[a]lthough the tribunal was aware that there were authorities where the courts had allowed such costs, those decisions were based on the court rules which allowed courts to award costs within a much wider scope than was the case for arbitrators.

-London, 2004, security for costs

The principles set out by the Appeal Arbitrator in previous awards were not strictly binding, but it was common sense that due regard should be paid to them if they applied on the facts of the case under consideration.

– London, 1987, Salvage

In fact, London arbitration tribunals preferred, wherever possible, to decide matters on the basis of the balance of probabilities without having regard to the somewhat technical questions that arose when the burden of proof had to be considered.

– London, 2001, Laytime & demurrage

[a]s with most questions of construction, this was very much a question that depended on first impressions, and was not susceptible of lengthy discussion.

– London, 1998, laytime & demurrage

There was no authority for the proposition that the plea of sovereign immunity was available in the course of an arbitration.

London, 1989, Salvage

[i]n reaching its decision on jurisdiction, the tribunal accepted that there had to be a dispute in being before there could be a reference

London, 2002, Additional premiums

It was sufficient to say that there was no reason in principle why a party who used a representative in an arbitration should not recover a reasonable amount.

– London, 1990, costs

The law was understandably very strict when it came to the discharge of contract. The arbitrators had to follow the law.( Hong Kong, 1994, withdrawal)

– Hong Kong, 1994, withdrawal

As to costs, had the owners succeeded the tribunal would only have awarded them about half their costs because their submissions were inappropriately lengthy and detailed.

– London, 2008, freight rates

However, this was a pure question of law, involving the law of contract, where certainty and the giving to the words of parties’ agreements their natural meaning were paramount considerations.

– London, 1992, Cancellation

There were no grounds of public policy that would require the tribunal to decline to give effect to the express choice of law clause – quite the opposite.

– London, 1989, P&I Club Rules

Although the charterers were successful, in a reduced amount, their success was not due to the findings of the WRC, as the latter’s assessment was both flawed and not carried out pursuant to the charterers’ instructions…However, in the interests of proportionality, and the importance attached to exposing flawed methodology, the award costs would be capped at £14,000, with the owners paying £4,000 and the charterers £10,000.

– London, 2021, speed claim

[t]he question being addressed in section 63(5)(b) was not as to the nature of costs (ie whether they were costs of the arbitration or not) but went only to costs which were properly to be regarded as costs of the arbitration: the question then was whether those were reasonably incurred or reasonable in amount.

– London, 2016

[t]he charterparty quite clearly provided for arbitration in London in accordance with English law, and indeed it expressly excluded the laws of any other jurisdiction from applying to such arbitration proceedings. In English law where there was a conflict.. in relation to jurisdiction, the tribunal had to decide, as a matter of construction.. the tribunal could do so under its general power to make a finding on its own jurisdiction

– London, 2017, balance hire

[b]oth parties had made submissions on what the position would have been if the arbitration had been a High Court action…Rules of Court did not of course apply to arbitration. It was only possible to settle disputes consensually. In some sense both claimants and respondents were at a disadvantage in attempting to settle a dispute consensually with the help of Rules of Court.

– London, 1994

The tribunal had been presented with a sealed envelope to be opened before considering costs. A question had arisen as to how the “sealed envelope” mechanism would work… . leaving aside the sealed offer, the charterers were the successful party and therefore the party entitled to costs as provided for in the Small Claims Procedure…

– London, 2015, demurrage

The report expressed a reconstructed opinion of the events which might have taken place. The tribunal did not find the report to be of much assistance. The report ended by making the observation that “may be no damage would have happened..”. That was a cautious conclusion, involving some hindsight and emphasised by the expression “may be”.

-London, 2011, stevedore damages

The reference was determined under the LMAA Small Claims Procedure, where costs were limited and there was no right of appeal. The tribunal commented that the charterers had sought, inappropriately, to put in additional submissions after those that would normally be expected had been served, and after the tribunal had indicated that no further submissions were appropriate. It was important that practitioners paid close attention to the SCP’s provisions.

– London, 2008, laytime & demurrage

As to costs, the tribunal opened a sealed envelope containing, first, an offer by the owners to accept US$60,000 and subsequently, an offer to accept US$40,000, in both cases inclusive of interest and costs. Those offers were neither accepted nor formally rejected by the charterers, but lapsed on the date stated in each offer. It therefore followed that the owners, as the successful party in the reference, were entitled to all their costs and to be reimbursed for the cost of the award.

– London, 2007, demurrage

In principle, an offer should be given much the same weight whenever it was made. It was difficult to conceive a sliding scale of minor weight during pleadings, greater weight after discovery and maximum weight after exchange of witness statements (or even skeleton arguments). Whenever an offer was made, both the offeror and the offeree were to some extent in the dark and had to make a prediction of uncertain future events.( London, 1994, beat an offer)

– London, 1994, beat an offer