Cathiship SA v Allanasons Ltd ('The Catherine Helen') [QBD (Comm)]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Geoffrey Brice |
| Judgment Date | 02 June 1998 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Date | 02 June 1998 |
Commercial Court of the Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Geoffrey Brice, QC
Arbitration - commencement of proceedings - restriction on extension of time by court
Section 12 of the Arbitration Act 1996 was markedly more restricted than its predecessor, section 27 of the Arbitration Act 1950. Accordingly, it was no longer open to the court to allow an extension of time for commencing arbitration proceedings because it concluded in general terms that it was just to do so.
Mr Geoffrey Brice, QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Commercial Court of the Queen's Bench Division so held when refusing an application by Cathiship SA, the owner of the Catherine Helen, for an extension of time under section 12 of the 1996 Act for commencing arbitration proceedings against the defendants, Allanasons Ltd.
Section 12 of the 1996 Act provides:
"(1) Where an arbitration agreement to refer future disputes to arbitration provides that a claim shall be barred, or the claimant's right extinguished, unless the claimant takes within a time fixed by the
agreement some step…the court may by order extend the time for taking that step…
"(3) The court shall make an order only if satisfied - (a) that the circumstances are such as were outside the reasonable contemplation of the parties when they agreed the provision in question…"
Mr Michael Nolan for the plaintiffs; Mr David Goldstone for the defendant.
HIS LORDSHIP said that the plaintiffs had applied to the court for a declaration that they had made a claim in writing against Allanasons and appointed an arbitrator within the one year period required by clause 23, an amended Centrocon arbitration clause, of an amended Gencon form of charterparty so that their claim was not time barred.
His Lordship concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with the Centrocon clause in either respect and refused the declaratory relief.
Alternatively, the plaintiffs applied under section 12 for an extension of time for commencing arbitration proceedings. His Lordship said that two matters were immediately apparent.
First, the power under subsection (1) was couched in permissive terms but that subsection was circumscribed by the obligatory conditions set out in subsection (3).
Second, section 12 was markedly more restricted than its predecessor, namely section 27 of the Arbitration Act 1950...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SOS Corporacion Alimentaria SA v Inerco Trade SA [QBD (Comm)]
...will not be satisfied. In Harbour & General Coleman J. referred at p71 to “not unusual circumstances”. In The Catherine Helen [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 511 at p520 it was put in terms of being “prone if not certain to occur”. If one relies on the analogy of the cases on remoteness of damages in......
-
Monella and another v PizzaExpress (Restaurants) Ltd
...1 EGLR 91, Geoffrey Brice QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court in the Commercial Court in Cathiship S.A. V. Allansons Ltd [1998] 3 All ER 714, or Mance J in Grimaldi Compagnia di Navigazione v. Sekihyo Lines Ltd [1999] 1 W.L.R. 708. Nor do I myself think that it differs very much ......
-
Harbour and General Works Ltd v Environment Agency
...1 EGLR 91; Geoffrey Brice QC sitting as a Deputy judge of the High Court in the Commercial Court in Cathiship SA v Allansons Ltd [1998] 3 All ER 714; or Mance J in Grimaldi Compagnia di Navigazione SpA v Sekihyo Line Ltd [1998] 3 All ER 943. Nor do I myself think that it differs very much f......
-
The "Eagle Prestige"
...of lading as presented. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr Geoffrey Brice QC sitting as Deputy Judge in The Catherine Helen [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 511 that it would be a commercially strange result that the head charterer/disponent owner has to wait until the head owner’s claim is as......