Image from Google Jackets

ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Ltd of England

Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] EWCA Civ 1341, 16 October 2006. Concerned an alleged serious irregularity pursued under the Arbitration Act 1996 s68(4). Applicant ship owner (S) applied for permission to appeal against the judge's refusal of permission to appeal under the Arbitration Act 1968 s68(4). S had alleged apparent bias by the third arbitrator (D) in the arbitration award granted in favour of the respondent charterer (T). The judge had decided there had been apparent bias, but S had waived its objection by failing to make a timely application to remove D under the 1996 Act s24 and by taking up the award. The judge therefore refused permission to appeal. S sought to use the European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 to persuade the CA to give leave to appeal. "Held": the judge's decision was not in breach of the Convention merely because it was wrong and therefore the CA had no jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 135723-2001

[2006] EWCA Civ 1341, 16 October 2006. Concerned an alleged serious irregularity pursued under the Arbitration Act 1996 s68(4). Applicant ship owner (S) applied for permission to appeal against the judge's refusal of permission to appeal under the Arbitration Act 1968 s68(4). S had alleged apparent bias by the third arbitrator (D) in the arbitration award granted in favour of the respondent charterer (T). The judge had decided there had been apparent bias, but S had waived its objection by failing to make a timely application to remove D under the 1996 Act s24 and by taking up the award. The judge therefore refused permission to appeal. S sought to use the European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 to persuade the CA to give leave to appeal. "Held": the judge's decision was not in breach of the Convention merely because it was wrong and therefore the CA had no jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal.