DHL Project & Chartering Limited v Gemini Ocean Shipping Co Limited
[2022] EWCA Civ 1555
Global Aerospares Limited v Airest AS
13 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1430 (Comm)
High Court
Two companies argued over money owed for airplane parts. One company tried to get a judge to help them start arbitration, but they didn't follow the rules for starting the process properly. The judge said they didn't follow the rules, so they couldn't get help from the judge, and they lost their case.
Key Facts
- •Global Aerospares Limited (Claimant) supplied aircraft parts to Airest AS (Defendant), an Estonian company.
- •The Claimant seeks directions under section 18 of the Arbitration Act 1996 due to a failure in the arbitration appointment procedure.
- •The parties' agreement (dated December 2014) stipulates English jurisdiction and arbitration in London but lacks specifics on arbitrator appointment.
- •The Defendant initially denied knowledge of the Claimant but now accepts dealings and disputes the Claimant's claim on the basis of unauthorized signature.
- •The Defendant challenged the court's jurisdiction under CPR Part 11, arguing the court lacked power under section 18 of the 1996 Act.
- •The Claimant's request to arbitrate, sent in November 2021, was allegedly not validly served according to the agreement's clause 9.
- •The court considered whether the Part 11 procedure is appropriate for non-territorial jurisdictional challenges, referring to Hoddinott v Persimmon Homes.
Legal Principles
Part 11 procedure is applicable to challenges of a court's power or authority to try a claim, not only territorial jurisdiction.
Hoddinott v Persimmon Homes [2007] EWCA Civ 1203
Section 18 of the Arbitration Act 1996 allows the court to give directions regarding arbitrator appointment if the procedure fails.
Arbitration Act 1996
Sections 14 and 16 of the Arbitration Act 1996 detail default procedures for commencing arbitral proceedings and arbitrator appointment.
Arbitration Act 1996
A notice of arbitration must be objectively clear about the request and sufficiently particular about the dispute.
Atlanska Plovidba v Consignaciones Asturianas SA [2004] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 109
The court's jurisdiction under section 18 depends on a failure of the contractual procedure and the absence of a party agreement on further steps.
Atlanska Plovidba v Consignaciones Asturianas SA [2004] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 109
A contractual notice provision ('must be served personally') is usually mandatory, unless the contract demonstrates otherwise.
Yates Building Company v Pulleyn and Co [1976] 1 EGLR 157
Outcomes
The Defendant's application to set aside the claim form and declare the court lacked jurisdiction was dismissed.
The court's power under section 18 wasn't challenged on grounds related to valid service or claim constitution but rather on whether the power was engaged—a matter of merits, not jurisdiction.
The Claimant's claim was dismissed.
The request to arbitrate was not validly served according to the agreement's clause 9, meaning the arbitration appointment procedure hadn't commenced, thus precluding court intervention under section 18.
Similar Cases
The London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited v The Kingdom of Spain (M/T ‘Prestige’)
[2023] EWHC 2473 (Comm)
Friedhelm Eronat v CPNC International (Chad) Ltd & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2880 (Comm)
G v R
[2023] EWHC 2365 (Comm)
Pantheon International Advisors Limited v Co-Diagnostics, Inc
[2023] EWHC 1984 (KB)