Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi as v Sometal Sal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE |
| Judgment Date | 18 January 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 29 (Comm) |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2009 FOLIO 1001 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Date | 18 January 2012 |
[2010] EWHC 29 (Comm)
Before: Mr Justice Christopher Clarke
Case No: 2009 FOLIO 1001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Paul Key and Siddharth Dhar (instructed by Radcliffes Le Brasseur) for the Claimant
John Russell (instructed by Clyde & Co) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 18 th December 2009
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
MR JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE :
This is an application by HabaŠ Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Isthisal Endustri A.S. (“HabaŠ”) under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996. HabaŠ, a Turkish company, seeks to set aside an Interim Final Award on Jurisdiction and Costs made by an LCIA Arbitral Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) by which the Tribunal decided that it had jurisdiction to entertain the claim made by Sometal S.A.L (“Sometal”), a Lebanese company. On such an application the Court is not involved only in reviewing the decision of the Tribunal: Azov Shipping v Baltic Shipping Co (No 1) [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep 68.
The underlying contract
By a contract in writing dated 9 th June 2008 (“the June Contract”), typed on a sheet of paper with the letter heading of a company whose abbreviated name is “Metkim” (hereafter “Metkim”) 1, Sometal S.A.L. (“Sometal”), for which Metkim acted as agent, agreed to sell 10,000 m.t. of steel scrap ex Romania & Bulgaria CIF FO Memrut Bay, Turkey. The contract contained a number of terms under the headings Material, Quantity, Price, Shipment, Discharge Rate, Payment, Final weight and NOR Tenderence (sic) and then ended with the words:
“ALL THE REST WILL BE SAME AS OUR PREVOUS CONTRACTS”
The issues
There had been 14 previous contracts between the same parties. The issues that presently divide them are whether general words such as these are capable of incorporating an arbitration clause and whether, if they are, the effect of these words as between these parties was to incorporate a London arbitration clause in the following terms:
“All disputes, or controversies, or differences, which may arise between buyer and seller under this contract, shall be settled in London, according to London Arbitration Rules, by the United Kingdom Law”.
I call this “the London arbitration clause”. The parties have agreed that, if this clause forms part of their contract, then the dispute between them, which is as to the validity of Sometal's claim for more than US $ 5 million on account of HabaŠ’ alleged repudiation of the contract by failing to take delivery of the scrap, is to be resolved by an LCIA arbitration.
HabaŠ contends, firstly, that for a clause such as the London arbitration clause to be incorporated into a contract there must either be an express reference to the clause or wording that shows a clear intention to incorporate it, and that in the present case neither requirement is satisfied. Secondly, even if general words are capable of incorporating such a clause, the words used in the present case are inapt for the purpose. Sometal submits that there are no such requirements and that the Tribunal was right to find that the parties had intended to incorporate the London arbitration clause.
The previous contracts
The first 3 of the previous 14 contracts were on paper with HabaŠ’ letter heading. The next 11 were either on a form drawn up by Sometal or on paper with Metkim's letter heading.
The sequence of contracts was as follows.
(i) 23 January 2004: a contract prepared by HabaŠ which provided:
“Should any dispute arise during the conclusion or execution of this contract, the parties will endeavour to settle any disputes in amicable fashion. Should the parties be unable to reach an amicable solution, the disputes should be submitted to the Court of Arbitration with UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules”.
(ii) 24 May 2004: a contract prepared by HabaŠ which contained the same clause.
(iii) 5 September 2005: a contract prepared by HabaŠ which contained a clause in which the first sentence was as in the two previous contracts but in which the second sentence read:
“Should the parties be unable to reach an amicable solution, the disputes shall be submitted to the Court of Arbitration in Istanbul according to the Turkish laws”.
(iv) 23 March 2006: a two-page contract prepared by Sometal which contained the London Arbitration Clause as the second of two clause 10s.
(v) 14 March 2007: a one-page contract on Metkim's letter heading which provided, after the operative clauses dealing with Material. Quantity, Price, Shipment, Payment etc:
“The rest will be agreed mutually”
(vi) 3 May 2007: a contract like that of 23 March 2006 prepared by Sometal which contained the London Arbitration Clause.
(vii) 9 August 2007: a one-page contract on Metkim's letter heading which provided:
“The rest will be as per previous contracts”
(viii) 11 September 2007: a one-page contract on Metkim notepaper, which also provided:
“The rest will be as per previous contracts”.
(ix) 25 October 2007: A one-page contract on Metkim notepaper, which again provided:
“The rest will be agreed mutually”
(x) 3 April 2008: A contract prepared by Sometal like that of 23 March 2006 which contained the London Arbitration Clause.
(xi) 9 April 2008: A contract prepared by Sometal like that of 23 March 2006 which contained the London Arbitration Clause.
(xii) 14 April 2008: A one-page contract, on Metkim notepaper, which provided:
“The rest will be agreed mutually”
(xiii) 6 May 2008: there were two contracts with this date, which provided as follows:
i. The first contract in time was on Metkim notepaper, was signed by HabaŠ on that date, and provided:
“All the rest will be same as our previous contracts”
ii. The second contract, prepared by Sometal, which was signed by at least one of the parties on 12 May 2008 and thus superseded the earlier contract, contained the London Arbitration Clause.
(xiv) 27 May 2008: a (one-page) contract, on Metkim notepaper,
which provided:
“All the rest will be same as our previous contracts”
(xv) 9 June 2008, the June Contract: a (one-page) contract, on Metkim notepaper which provided:
“All the rest will be same as our previous contracts”
In respect of each of the contracts which provided that “The rest will be agreed mutually”, or “The rest will be as per previous contracts,” or “All the rest will be same as our previous contracts”, other than the first contract of 6 May 2008, there is no evidence of any later agreement that disputes should be determined by arbitration. The Metkim prepared contracts, like the Sometal prepared contracts set out the terms relating to Material, Quantity, Price and Shipment but, unlike the Sometal contracts, did not set out terms relating to quality, demurrage, force majeure or law and arbitration.
The ruling of the Tribunal
The Tribunal (Sir Simon Tuckey, Chairman, Mr Mark Hamsher and Mr Stephen Jagusch) heard HabaŠ’ challenge to its jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. In paragraphs 13 and 14 of its Award it recorded the distinction made by the Courts between (a) cases where what was sought to be incorporated were the terms of a separate contract between two other persons or between one of the parties and a third party, on the one hand, where, as it held, specific reference to the arbitration clause or demonstration of a clear intention to incorporate the arbitration clause was required, and (ii) other cases of incorporation where general words would suffice and where no specific evidence of clear intention to incorporate the arbitration clause was required. It then held that the present case fell into the latter and not the former category
On the issue as to whether the words used did in fact incorporate the London arbitration clause, the Tribunal referred to the fact that the June contract, like the other Metkim prepared contracts, did not refer to important commercial terms such as quality and demurrage and asked itself whether the reference to terms “as our previous contracts” should be limited to terms such as those, as HabaŠ contended. It answered that question in the negative, deciding that the intention of the parties was to incorporate any terms from previous contracts which added to the terms set out in the short form Metkim prepared contracts. It then defined the question that it had to answer as being: is it clear where one has to look to discover what those terms were?
The Tribunal then decided that the parties could not possibly have intended to refer back to the HabaŠ prepared contracts (contracts 1–3) because Metkim had not been involved in making those contracts, each of which was subject to Turkish law and the last of which had been made in September 2005. It then held that the parties could not have intended to refer to the previous Metkim prepared contracts because those contracts either contained no relevant additional terms at all (in the case of contracts 5, 9, and 12 where the terms were to be agreed) or themselves referred to previous contracts (in the case of contracts 7, 8, 13 and 14). That left only the Sometal prepared contacts, which contained additional terms including the London arbitration clause.
As a result, the Tribunal concluded, the parties, by incorporating “all the rest” of the terms in “our previous contracts” in the June Contract clearly intended to refer to the additional terms to be found in the Sometal prepared contracts. The Tribunal thought that, if there was any doubt about the matter, it was resolved by what happened in relation to contract 13. In that case a Metkim prepared contract providing “all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stellar Shipping Company LLC v Hudson Shipping Lines
...approach to incorporation is taken in “two contract” cases – see the authorities referred to and summarised in Habas v Sometal [2010] 1 Lloyd's Rep 661. It was submitted that this was a “two contract” case and that there were not in fact any apt words of incorporation. 60 Like the Tribunal ......
- TTMI Sarl v Statoil ASA (The "Sibohelle")
-
Heytex Bramsche GmbH v Unity Trade Capital Ltd
...a third party: Barrier Ltd v Redhall Marine Ltd [2016] EWHC 381 (QB); Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Isthisal Endustri AS v Sometal SAL [2010] EWHC 29 (Comm), [2010] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 661; TTMI SARL v Statoil ASA [2011] EWHC 1150 (Comm), [2011] 2 Lloyd's Rep 220.” vi) Moreover, had they been......
-
SEA2011 Inc. v ICT Ltd
...of an arbitration clause in a contract (see Christopher Clarke J in Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Isthisal Endustri AS v Sometal SAL [2010] EWHC 29 (Comm); [2010] Bus. L.R. 880 at [46]), and there is no reason that the position should be any different with the doctrine of implied terms. It m......
-
Case Update - International Research Corp PLC v Lufthansa Systems Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and another [2013] SGCA 55
...(Bermuda) Ltd ("The Athena") (No. 2) [2007] 1 Lloyd's Law Rep 280 and Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Isthisal Endustri AS v Sometal SAL [2010] EWHC 29 (Comm) refined the strict rule of incorporation. Both courts have drawn a distinction between "single contract" and "two-contract" A "single co......
-
General Words Sufficient to Incorporate Arbitration Clause into Sale Contract
...Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar isthisal Endustri AS v Sometal SAL [2010] EWHC 29 (Comm) Background The seller, S, sought to bring a claim against the buyer, H, in London arbitration for alleged repudiatory breach of a sale contract for steel scrap. H countered that there was no arbitration agreement......
-
The Incorporation of Arbitration Agreements
...EWHC 381 (QB) Taken from Chitty on Contracts at 13-013 Published by Sweet v Maxwell. 32nd edn, November 2015 [2010] EWHC 3415 (TCC) [2010] EWHC 29 Comm International Quarterly is produced quartely by Fenwick Elliott LLP, the leading specialist construction law firm in the UK, working with c......
-
Dispute Resolution Group - Second Case Review 2010
...Arbitration Sinai ve Tibbi Gazzlar Isthisal Endustri A.S. v Sometal S.A.L. [2010] EWHC 29 (Comm) Incorporation of arbitration clause from earlier contracts between the same Clyde & Co successfully represented the Defendant. It is well established by caselaw that in a two-contract situat......
-
Table of cases
...volume 2) 34 I.2.144 Gye v McIntyre (1991) 171 CLR 609 II.6.419 Habas Sinai VE Tibbi Gazlar Isthisal Endustri AS v Sometal SAL [2010] EWHC 29 (Comm) III.25.48 Haberdasher’s Aske’s Federation Trust Ltd v Lakehouse Contracts Ltd [2018] EWHC 558 (TCC) III.17.21, III.17.23, III.17.60, III.17.64......
-
Arbitration
...Ltd v Blackbourne Electrical Company Ltd [2009] NIQB 99; Habas Sinai VE Tibbi Gazlar Isthisal Endustri A.S. v Sometal S.A.L. [2010] EWHC 29 (Comm); Stellar Shipping Co Llc v Hudson Shipping Lines [2010] EWHC 2985 (Comm); Lend Lease Infrastructure Services Pty Ltd v Sino Iron Pty Ltd [2012] ......
-
Arbitration
...in Aughton Ltd v MF Kent Services Ltd(1991) 31 Con LR 60. More recently in Haba Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Isthisal Endüstri A v Sometal SAL[2010] Bus LR 880, Christopher Clarke J examined various scenarios where an arbitration clause from another document could be considered for incorporation a......