United Kingdom / 23 November 2011 / England and Wales, High Court / Five Oceans Salvage Ltd v. Wenzhou Timber Group Co. / 2011 Folio No. 1265
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Court | England and Wales, High Court |
| Date | 23 November 2011 |
| Parties | Five Oceans Salvage Ltd v. Wenzhou Timber Group Co. |
| Case number | 2011 Folio No. 1265 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(d) |
| Source |
[2011] EWHC 3282 | online: BAILII |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Five Oceans Salvage Ltd (“Five Oceans”) concluded a salvage agreement with the owners of the vessel “The Medea K”, whose cargo belonged to the Wenzhou Timber Group Co. (“WTG”). The agreement provided that, in the event the salvage operation was a success, Five Oceans’ remuneration therefor would be determined by arbitration in London. The salvage operation was successful and, by an interim award issued in April 2010 and a final award issued in January 2011, a sole arbitrator fixed the total amount payable to Five Oceans by WTG. Five Oceans sought enforcement of the awards against WTG in the courts of the People’s Republic of China (“the PRC”). WTG resisted enforcement on the grounds, inter alia, that it had not authorised its insurance representative to act on its behalf during the arbitral proceedings, of which it had not been given notice (citing Article V(1)(b) NYC), and that it had never authorised the insurance representative to act on its behalf during the salvage operation or the arbitration proceedings (citing Article V(1)(d) NYC). Five Oceans thereafter discontinued the Chinese enforcement proceedings and sued WTG’s insurance representative for breach of warranty of authority before the English High Court. It also brought applications under: (i) section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) (“the Act”), for a determination as to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator (seeking, in particular, a ruling to the effect that, by reason of the breach of natural justice caused to WTG, the sole arbitrator retained jurisdiction to issue a further award) and (ii) section 68(2)(a),(b) and (c) of the Act, to have the earlier awards set aside on the ground of serious irregularity insofar as the arbitrator had failed to require that written notice of the arbitral proceedings be given to WTG. The High Court dismissed the applications. In relation to the section 32 application, it found that the arbitrator was functus officio and did not retain jurisdiction to make any further award against WTG. In relation to the section 68 application, it found that the arbitrator had complied with his general duty under the Act to act fairly and impartially as between the parties and that nothing would have put the arbitrator on notice that WTG was not duly and properly represented by its representative in the proceedings, or that the conduct of the proceedings was contrary to the procedure agreed on by the parties. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
