“A long chain included 'middle' voyage charters (P/Q, Q/R, R/S) each with a clause imposing a time bar unless claims were notified and an arbitrator appointed within 13 months of final discharge. A cargo damage claim was brought against head owners after 11 months. Notice of an indemnity claim reached 'P' on the last day of the 13 month period remained unseen until the following day, so that notice to 'Q' and so on down the line was delayed. The Court construed the clause literally and strictly, rather than in the light of the chain. It also declined to extend P's time under s.12 of the Arbitration Act because although the circumstances were outside the reasonable contemplation of the parties, P did not act expeditiously and in a commercially appropriate fashion viz a viz Q.”

“Time charterers Grindrod had delayed for more than 6 years in pursuing their London arbitration claim for damages against owners and in the meantime the contractual time bar passed. The Tribunal issued an award, dismissing the claim on the grounds of an inordinate and inexcusable delay. The High Court dismissed Grindrod's 'serious irregularity' challenge to the award, pursuant to S.68 of the Arbitration Act , on the grounds that the complaint was one of form rather than substance (submissions raised and responded to under one heading had been addressed under another) and therefore there had been no breach of duty by the Tribunal nor any substantial injustice.”

“Following salvage assistance to a Vessel suffering engine shut-downs near navigation channels, the LOF arbitrator based his award on a danger posed by temporary immobilisation but declined to find a collision risk danger. The appeal arbitrator accepted such a danger, increasing the salvor's remuneration. Owners raised a 'serious irregularity' challenge, saying that this particular danger (collision offshore instead of on channel passage) was neither pleaded nor argued but merely raised in discussion by the appeal arbitrator. The Court dismissed the challenge, refusing to find unfairness (Owners had the opportunity to address the point) or that any irregularity was 'serious' (given that salvage arbitration is informal in nature and the arbitrators are expected to use their own knowledge and experience) or that there had been substantial injustice (as a significantly different outcome was unlikely to have resulted from Owners addressing the new point).”

“The Court allowed an appeal from an arbitration award which had held that shipowners were unable to recover from charterers in respect of liability to those interested in a cargo of direct reduced iron. Clause 49 of the c/p on the NYPE 46 form stated "the Stevedores... to remain under the direction of the Master who will be responsible for proper stowage and seaworthiness and safety of the vessel". The Court held that such a partial transfer of responsibility to the shipowners for some aspects of cargo handling is not sufficient for there to be considered a "similar amendment" for the purposes of Clause 8(b) of the ICA.”

“The 28 day period for challenging an Arbitration Award was held to run from the date of the Award and not from the date of a Memorandum (requested 12 days, and issued 27 days after the Award) under s57(3)(a) of the Arbitration Act, correcting what the Court termed "classic clerical and typographical errors". The corrections were unconnected with and not material to the grounds of appeal and the Court held that the appeal was out of time and declined to exercise its discretion to grant a retrospective extension.”

“The Court found that an exclusive jurisdiction clause creates "continuing obligations" meaning that claimants were obliged to neither start nor continue proceedings anywhere other than England. Following commencement (in 2008) and continuation of negligence proceedings against them in Germany by their former clients, AMTF brought proceedings in England (in 2007) for damages for breach of the jurisdiction clause. The High Court held that allegations relating to events within 6 years of commencement of the English suit were not bound to fail and dismissed AMTF application for Summary Judgment.”