Key Facts
- •Port de Djibouti SA (PDSA) challenged the jurisdiction of a sole arbitrator under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
- •The arbitration concerned disputes arising from contracts between PDSA and DP World Djibouti FZCO (DP World) relating to a joint venture.
- •A Presidential Ordinance transferred PDSA's shares in the joint venture company to the Republic of Djibouti.
- •PDSA argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction over claims arising after the Presidential Ordinance because PDSA ceased to be a shareholder.
- •DP World argued PDSA remained a shareholder and the arbitrator had jurisdiction.
Legal Principles
Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 allows a challenge to an arbitrator's jurisdiction.
Arbitration Act 1996
Section 73(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 states that a party who participates in arbitration without raising a jurisdictional objection may lose the right to raise it later.
Arbitration Act 1996
Contractual interpretation principles were applied, focusing on the objective meaning of the language used by the parties.
Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] AC 1173
The separability principle dictates that a dispute about the validity of the main contract does not affect the arbitration agreement unless the invalidity impeaches the arbitration agreement itself.
DHL Project & Chartering v Gemini Ocean Shipping [2022] EWCA Civ 1555
Issue estoppel prevents a party from re-litigating an issue already decided in previous proceedings.
Westland Helicopters Ltd v Al-Hejailan [2004] 2 Lloyd's Rep 523, C v D1 [2015] EWHC 2126 (Comm)
Outcomes
The court dismissed PDSA's jurisdictional challenge.
The arbitrator had jurisdiction over all matters determined. The court found the arbitrator's interpretation of the contracts and the application of the Arbitration Act to be correct, even if PDSA ceased to be a shareholder after the Presidential Ordinance. Furthermore, PDSA lost the right to object under section 73(1) of the Arbitration Act.