Image from Google Jackets

TTMI Ltd of England v ASM Shipping Ltd of India

Language: English Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2005] EWHC 2666 (Comm), 23 November 2005. T chartered a vessel from A which arrived late at the nominated load port. When T claimed substantial losses, and A counterclaimed, the dispute was referred to an arbitrator, X. During the hearing, A discovered that X had previously been instructed by T's solicitors in a matter in which serious allegations had been made against M, one of A's witnesses. A objected to X's further participation, pointing out that the allegations against M in the previous case had included the production of fraudulent documents. X refused to stand down, arguing that the objection ought to have been made before M started to give evidence. A partial award was made. A argued that the award should be set aside on the grounds of bias. "Held" a party wishing to raise an objection to arbitration proceedings must do so as soon as it becomes aware of the issue in question. In view of the tight timescale involved, A had not waived its rights to object to possible bias by permitting M to give evidence. When X refused to stand down, however, A should have made an immediate application for his removal under the Arbitration Act 1996, s24. Instead, A had taken up the partial award that was made, although continuing to object by correspondence. By taking up the award, A had lost the right to object to X's continuance in the arbitration.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 133654-1001

[2005] EWHC 2666 (Comm), 23 November 2005. T chartered a vessel from A which arrived late at the nominated load port. When T claimed substantial losses, and A counterclaimed, the dispute was referred to an arbitrator, X. During the hearing, A discovered that X had previously been instructed by T's solicitors in a matter in which serious allegations had been made against M, one of A's witnesses. A objected to X's further participation, pointing out that the allegations against M in the previous case had included the production of fraudulent documents. X refused to stand down, arguing that the objection ought to have been made before M started to give evidence. A partial award was made. A argued that the award should be set aside on the grounds of bias. "Held" a party wishing to raise an objection to arbitration proceedings must do so as soon as it becomes aware of the issue in question. In view of the tight timescale involved, A had not waived its rights to object to possible bias by permitting M to give evidence. When X refused to stand down, however, A should have made an immediate application for his removal under the Arbitration Act 1996, s24. Instead, A had taken up the partial award that was made, although continuing to object by correspondence. By taking up the award, A had lost the right to object to X's continuance in the arbitration.