Navios International Inc v Sangamon Transportation Group (The Dimitris L) – QBD (Com Ct)(Hamblen J) – 8 February 2012

Arbitration – Award – Reasons – Whether party entitled to order that tribunal should state reasons for its award – Arbitration Act 1996 section 70(4)

(2012) 841 LMLN 1(2)

Awards

Scandinavian Reinsurance Co Ltd v Saint Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company and Ors – US Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) (Sack and Livingston Ct JJ and Murtha DJ) – 3 February 2012

Arbitration – Award – Failure by arbitrators to disclose that they were acting as arbitrators in concurrent similar arbitration – Whether award should be vacated for “evident partiality”

(2012) 841 LMLN 4

Awards

West Tankers Inc v Allianz SpA and Anr (The “Front Comor”) (No 2) – Court of Appeal (Carnwath, Lloyd and Toulson LJJ) – 24 January 2012

Arbitration – Award – Enforcement – Whether court had jurisdiction to enforce declaratory arbitration award as a judgment under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996

(2012) 840 LMLN 1

Arbitration, Awards

Five Oceans Salvage Ltd v Wenzhou Timber Group Co (The “Medea K”) – QBD (Com Ct)(Field J) – 23 November 2011

Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Serious irregularity – Salvage arbitrator making award against respondent cargo owners – Cargo owners contending they had not authorised representatives to act for them in the arbitration – Whether arbitrator retained jurisdiction to remedy alleged breach of natural justice – Whether innocent failure by arbitrator to give cargo owners opportunity of putting their case constituted serious irregularity – Arbitration Act 1996, sections 32 and 68

(2012) 838 LMLN 2

Jurisdiction

London Arbitration 12/11

The vessel was chartered on an amended Baltime 1939 form for a period of six months plus or minus 15 days in charterers’ option. For her first voyage, the charterers had sub-chartered the vessel for the carriage of a cargo of bagged cement from Antalya, Turkey, to Matadi in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

London Arbitration 10/11

The vessel, a VLCC, was chartered for a voyage which included discharging at Caofeidian, China. Freight was to be payable at the rate of WS160.

London Arbitration 11/11

The vessel was time chartered by her registered owners (“the owners”) to C1, who in turn sub-chartered her to C2, who in turn sub-sub-chartered her to C3 (“the charterers”) for a trip.

ED & F Man Sugar Ltd v Belmont Shipping Ltd (The “Amplify”) – QBD (Com Ct)(Teare J) – 18 November 2011

The claimant charterers chartered the vessel Amplify from the defendant owners under a charterparty on an amended Sugar Charter Party 1999 form dated 30 July 2009 for a voyage from Santos, Brazil to India.

London Arbitration 9/11

The vessel was chartered on the Gencon form for the carriage of 35,000 mt iron ore fines in bulk from Haldia and Krishnapatnam in India to, in the event, Luoyuan in China.

African Fertilizers and Chemicals NIG Ltd (Nigeria) v BD Shipsnavo GmbH & Co Reederei KG (The "Christian D") - QBD (Comm Ct) (Beatson J) - 29 September 2011

Disputes arose between shipowners and cargo owners under a bill of lading issued in respect of cargo carried onboard the vessel Christian D following the grounding of the vessel in Romanian waters and the subsequent declaration of General Average.

A and Ors v B and Anr - QBD (Comm Ct)(Flaux J) - 15 September 2011

On 31 March 2009 the first defendant (“B”) commenced arbitration against the claimants (“A”), pursuant to the Rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) alleging breaches of a share and purchase agreement.

Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Co Ltd - QBD (Comm Ct)(HH Judge Chambers QC) - 23 August 2011

By a charterparty dated 4 April 2008 (“the April charterparty”) the claimant owners chartered the reefer vessels Almeda Star and Avelona Star to Kalistad Ltd (“the charterers”).

London Arbitration 7/11

The claimant buyers contracted with the respondent sellers to purchase the sellers’ vessel for US$26.55 million.

Sovarex SA v Romero Alvarez SA - QBD (Com Ct)(Hamblen J) - 29 June 2011

The claimant (“Sovarex”) contended that it concluded a contract with the respondent (“Alvarez”) by which Sovarex agreed to sell to Alvarez 5,000 mt of sunflower seeds.