AOOT Kalmneft v Glencore International AG [QBD (Comm)]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Colman J. |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 2001 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Date | 27 July 2001 |
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Before Mr Justice Colman
Arbitration - extension of time limits - material considerations - Arbitration Act 1996 Section 67, 68 & 69 - Civil Procedure Rules Rule 3.1(2)
In determining whether to extend the statutory time limit for making an application to the court under sections 67, 68 or 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 against an arbitrator's decision, the court had to take into account several factors including the policy of the 1996 Act to preserve party autonomy and ensure the finality of awards in arbitration proceedings and the need to make allowance for parties inexperienced at international arbitration.
The Queen's Bench Division so held when dismissing applications by Aoot Kalmneft, a company registered in the Republic of Kalmykia:
(i) to set aside under section 67 of the 1996 Act the decision of a sole arbitrator, Mr Andrew Berkeley, made on November 24, 2000 that a dispute under a contract made between the claimant and Glencore International AG was subject to an agreement to arbitrate in accordance with the 1996 Act, on the ground that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction;
(ii) to set aside that decision under section 68 of the 1996 Act on the ground that serious irregularities affected the proceedings, when by not giving the claimant a reasonable opportunity to put its case or deal with its opponent's case the tribunal failed to comply with its general duty under section 33(1)(a) of that Act to act fairly and impartially between the parties;
(iii) to extend the 28-day time limit prescribed by section 70(3) of the 1996 Act for bringing the applications under sections 67 and 68; and
(iv) to remove the arbitrator under section 24(1)(d) of the 1996 Act on the ground that he failed properly to conduct the proceedings.
The contract provided that it was to be governed by the law of England and that disputes under it were to be submitted to arbitration in London under the English Arbitration Act.
The claimant disputed the arbitrator's jurisdiction, submitting that it was not bound by the English courts or the arbitration clause because the contract was invalid, being fraudulently entered into without the claimant's knowledge by its director.
Mr Simon Crookenden, QC for the claimant; Mr Steven Berry for the defendant.
MR JUSTICE COLMAN said that by section 31 of the 1996 Act, the arbitrator could rule on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Peterson Farms Inc. v C & M Farming Ltd
-
Broda Agro Trade (Cyprus) Ltd v Alfred C Topefer International GmbH
...Arbitration Act 1996. 46 The manner in which this discretion should be exercised was considered by Colman J. in Kalemneft v Glencore [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep.128. In Nagusina Naviers v Allied Maritime Inc [2002] EWCA Civ 1147 and [2003] 2 CLC 1 the Court of Appeal was referred to the guidance g......
-
Colliers International Property Consultants (1) & Colliers International Property Consultants Inc. (2) v Colliers Jordan Lee Jafaar Sdn Bhd
...fraud of a party to the arbitration or of another to which a party was privy. 32 Having regard to the guidelines set out in AOOT Kalmneft v Glencore Internaltional AG [2001] Lloyds Rep 128 by Colman J and approved in Nagusinina Naviera v Allied Maritime Inc [2002] EWCA Civ 1147 at [38], th......
-
Terna Bahrain Holding Company Wll v Ali Marzook Ali Bin Kamil Al Shamsi and Others
...time to challenge an arbitration award have been addressed in a number of recent authorities, most notably in Kalmneft v Glencore [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 128, Nagusina Naviera v Allied Maritime Inc. [2003] 2 CLC 1, L Brown & Sons Limited v Crosby Homes (Northwest) Limited [2008] BLR 366, Brod......