ASM Shipping Ltd of India v Harris and Others

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeAndrew Smith J
Judgment Date28 June 2007
Neutral Citation[2007] EWHC 1513 (Comm)
Date28 June 2007
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)

Queen's Bench Division

Before Mr Justice Andrew Smith

ASM Shipping Ltd of India
and
Harris and Others
Arbitrators not tainted by association

It was not the case that where one member of a tribunal was tainted by apparent bias that the whole tribunal was thereby affected.

Mr Justice Andrew Smith so held in the Queen's Bench Division when dismissing the claim of the claimant, ASM Shipping Ltd, under section 24 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for an order for the removal of the first and second defendants, Mr Bruce Harris and Mr A. G. Scott, two arbitrators, on the ground that circumstances existed that gave rise to justifiable doubts about their impartiality, in a reference of a dispute concerning a charterparty between ASM Shipping of India, the owners, and the third defendant, TTMI Shipping Ltd of England, the charterers.

Mr Sarosh Zaiwalla, solicitor, and Mr Kumarlo Menns, solicitor, for the claimant; Mr Simon Croall for TTMI Shipping; the arbitrators made written submissions.

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH said that no suggestion had been made either that Mr Harris or Mr Scott had been guilty of any sort of improper or unprofessional conduct nor were they to be the subject of any such criticism.

The application for the removal of the two arbitrators had arisen out of the fact that in 2005 Mr Justice Morison had upheld ASM's allegation under section 68 of the 1996 Act, enabling ASM to challenge an interim award on preliminary issues on the ground that the third arbitrator, Mr Duncan Matthews, QC, should have recused himself because of apparent bias: see ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Shipping Ltd of EnglandUNK ((2006) 2 All ER (Comm) 122).

Mr Justice Morison had rejected the application to set aside the award but held that Mr Matthews should not continue to act in the arbitration. Mr Matthews had subsequently recused himself.

ASM then made the section 24 application in respect of the two...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Hussain v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 29 June 2017
    ...by apparent bias that the entire tribunal was " affected second-hand by apparent bias" citing ASM Shipping Limited v Bruce Harris [2007] EWHC 1513 (Comm) (" ASM") at paragraph [44] per Andrew Smith J. At paragraphs [34] and [35] Lord Justice Maurice Kay, having cited ASM, observed that: " …......
  • ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Ltd of England (The Amer Energy)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • Invalid date
1 firm's commentaries
  • A World Of Choice: The Competition For International Arbitration Work - Part II
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 27 October 2008
    ...1 WLR 1041. Per Lord Hobouse. See Part I of this article: [2008] Asian DR 44 at 45-46. [2005] EWHC 2238, unreported (19 October 2005). [2007] EWHC 1513, unreported (28 Paragraph 44 of the judgment, per Andrew Smith J. Rule 5.3. Rule 27.1. CEITAC's New Arbitration Rules: Do the Reforms go fa......
1 books & journal articles
  • ARBITRATORS’ CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: BIAS BY ANY NAME
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2007, December 2007
    • 1 December 2007
    ...remaining arbitrators on the ground of justifiable doubts about their impartiality, and this challenge was dismissed by Andrew Smith J, [2007] EWHC 1513. 48 Para 6 Introduction....

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT