Luke Zadkovich and Calum Cheyne discuss CVLC v Arab Maritime Petroleum Transport Company [2021] EWHC 551 (Comm).

In this week’s case, Luke and Calum look at Cockerill J’s confirmation that once the Court has given permission to appeal under Section 69 Arbitration Act 1996 at a permission hearing, the question of whether or not leave to appeal ought to have been granted cannot then be re-opened as a defence in the substantive trial on the appealed issues.

The Judge’s reasoning was that the question of permission is a standalone issue, dealt with at the permission stage, which does not require re-visiting at the substantive hearing of the appeal. In this case, the Defendant sought to argue that the question on appeal was not a question that the Tribunal had answered in the arbitration – if that had been correct, it would not have satisfied Section 69(3)(b) Arbitration Act 1996, and the appeal should not have been allowed.

In this case, even though the Judge held that the question could not be re-opened, the Judge also found that even if it was re-considered, permission was in any event rightly granted.

The case also looks at the question of maritime security, and the question of whether there is an implied term in a guarantee that the guarantee itself is sufficient security and no further security can be sought by the beneficiary.

The conversation looks at maritime security instruments, Section 69 appeals and urgent maritime applications. In the conversation, Calum mentions an article by Clare Ambrose, Michael Collet QC and Karen Maxwell on emergency relief in maritime arbitrations. That article is available here: https://twentyessex.com/interim-and-emergency-relief-in-support-of-maritime-arbitration-under-english-law/.

In this episode, Calum and Luke look at the recent decision of Alpha Marine Corp. v. Minmetals Logistics Zhejiang Co. Ltd., [2021] EWHC 1157 (Comm).

Owners claimed against charterers for a series of losses arising under a time charterparty. Owners demanded payment of freight directly from shippers, in order to satisfy the alleged debt. Shippers didn’t know who to pay: Owners under the bill, or charterers under the voyage charterparty? Ultimately, Shippers made partial payment into escrow before going insolvent.

Owners’ claims against Charterers largely failed. Charterers claimed that owners’ demands for the freight (against Shippers) were unlawful and were the cause of the delayed/reduced payment.

Owners said they were entitled to take the freight. Charterers argued that a time charterparty contains an implied term that owners could only exercise this right where they were owed money by charterers.

The High Court found no such implied term – reinforcing an owners’ right to demand freight directly.

Judgment available here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2021/1157.pdf

Listen in for the analysis.

We’re delighted to welcome Richard Murray to our London office!