Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

II. Time Limit For Appointment Of Arbitrator

II. Time Limit For Appointment Of Arbitrator The requirement for the appointment of an arbitrator within a stated time was the subject of decision in the recent case of Agro Company of Canada Ltd. v. Richmond Shipping Ltd. (1973) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 392. On August 6, 1970, the owners of the motor vessel Simonburn let her on charter to Agro Company of Canada Ltd. It was a consecutive voyage charter for five consecutive voyages. The charter party provided that the vessel was to proceed to one safe berth Baltimore or in charterers option one safe berth Philadelphia and there load, always afloat, from said Charterers or their agents, a full and complete bulk cargo of any grainand being so loaded shall therewith proceed to one safe port Antwerp/Hamburg range or at the Charterers' option one safe berth Tilbury. The charter party incorporated the Centrocon arbitration clause which statedAll disputes from time to time arising out of this contract shall, unless the parties agree forthwith on a single arbitrator, be referred to the final arbitratement of two arbitrators carrying on business in London, who shall be members of the Baltic, and engaged in the shipping and/ orgrain trades, one to be appointed by each of the parties, with power to such arbitrators to appoint an umpire. Any claim must be made in writing and claimant's arbitrator appointed within three months of final discharge and where this provision is not complied with the claim shall be deemed to be waived and absolutely barred. On November 18, 1970, the vessel arrived at Baltimore. She started loading. On November 23, she grounded. She completed loading on November 24. On that day the master wrote to the charterers saying : "I must hold you responsible for any hull damage the ship may have suffered while loading at this berth, because the charter party states vessel to be loaded one safe berth Baltimore and always afloat". The vessel went on her voyage accross the Atlantic. On December 23, 1970, she completed discharge at Tilbury. At the end of January 1971, she was put into dry dock at Rotterdam. Extensive damage was found. The cost of repairs was over £23,000. The defendants sought to hold the plaintiffs respon­ sible for the damage suffered by the vessel, but the plaintiffs (the charterers) at once disclaimed responsibility. The vessel continued on her voyages. Discharge of the vessel under the fourth voyage was completed on May 1, 1971, at Montreal. By agreement there was no further voyage. On April 26, 1971, that is before the fourth voyage was completed, the defendants informed the plaintiffs that they had appointed their arbitrator. The plaintiffs applied for a declaration that (1) the appointment of the arbitrator was of no effect because it had not been made "within three months of final discharge" because those words meant completion of discharge on the voyage out of which the claim arose, i.e. the first voyage, and (2) the defend­ ant's claim was therefor barred. But the owners contended that they had three months after the end of the fourth and final voyage, that is, three months from May 1, 1971, in which to appoint their arbitrator. The proceedings eventually went to the Court of Appeal, who held that the words "final discharge" in the Centrocorm arbitration clause means final dis­ charge of the cargo in respect of which the claim arises. Therefore the appoint­ ment of the arbitrators by the defendants in this case was too late, and their claim was accordingly barred. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Asian International Arbitration Journal Kluwer Law International

II. Time Limit For Appointment Of Arbitrator

Asian International Arbitration Journal , Volume 40 (4): 1 – Aug 1, 1973
Download PDF
1 page

Loading next page...
 
/lp/kluwer-law-international/ii-time-limit-for-appointment-of-arbitrator-sAmU0O5yD6

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Kluwer Law International
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 Kluwer Law International BV, The Netherlands
ISSN
1574-3330
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The requirement for the appointment of an arbitrator within a stated time was the subject of decision in the recent case of Agro Company of Canada Ltd. v. Richmond Shipping Ltd. (1973) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 392. On August 6, 1970, the owners of the motor vessel Simonburn let her on charter to Agro Company of Canada Ltd. It was a consecutive voyage charter for five consecutive voyages. The charter party provided that the vessel was to proceed to one safe berth Baltimore or in charterers option one safe berth Philadelphia and there load, always afloat, from said Charterers or their agents, a full and complete bulk cargo of any grainand being so loaded shall therewith proceed to one safe port Antwerp/Hamburg range or at the Charterers' option one safe berth Tilbury. The charter party incorporated the Centrocon arbitration clause which statedAll disputes from time to time arising out of this contract shall, unless the parties agree forthwith on a single arbitrator, be referred to the final arbitratement of two arbitrators carrying on business in London, who shall be members of the Baltic, and engaged in the shipping and/ orgrain trades, one to be appointed by each of the parties, with power to such arbitrators to appoint an umpire. Any claim must be made in writing and claimant's arbitrator appointed within three months of final discharge and where this provision is not complied with the claim shall be deemed to be waived and absolutely barred. On November 18, 1970, the vessel arrived at Baltimore. She started loading. On November 23, she grounded. She completed loading on November 24. On that day the master wrote to the charterers saying : "I must hold you responsible for any hull damage the ship may have suffered while loading at this berth, because the charter party states vessel to be loaded one safe berth Baltimore and always afloat". The vessel went on her voyage accross the Atlantic. On December 23, 1970, she completed discharge at Tilbury. At the end of January 1971, she was put into dry dock at Rotterdam. Extensive damage was found. The cost of repairs was over £23,000. The defendants sought to hold the plaintiffs respon­ sible for the damage suffered by the vessel, but the plaintiffs (the charterers) at once disclaimed responsibility. The vessel continued on her voyages. Discharge of the vessel under the fourth voyage was completed on May 1, 1971, at Montreal. By agreement there was no further voyage. On April 26, 1971, that is before the fourth voyage was completed, the defendants informed the plaintiffs that they had appointed their arbitrator. The plaintiffs applied for a declaration that (1) the appointment of the arbitrator was of no effect because it had not been made "within three months of final discharge" because those words meant completion of discharge on the voyage out of which the claim arose, i.e. the first voyage, and (2) the defend­ ant's claim was therefor barred. But the owners contended that they had three months after the end of the fourth and final voyage, that is, three months from May 1, 1971, in which to appoint their arbitrator. The proceedings eventually went to the Court of Appeal, who held that the words "final discharge" in the Centrocorm arbitration clause means final dis­ charge of the cargo in respect of which the claim arises. Therefore the appoint­ ment of the arbitrators by the defendants in this case was too late, and their claim was accordingly barred.

Journal

Asian International Arbitration Journal – Kluwer Law International

Published: Aug 1, 1973

There are no references for this article.