A legal dispute over the chartering of a ship has important implications for real estate players involved in arbitrations, warns top property litigator Roger Cohen.
Andrew Smith J has given judgment on a shipping dispute that serves as a warning that those using arbitration in the real estate industry need to raise concerns promptly and clearly, because failing to air complaints during the arbitration may undermine future challenges.
The dispute related to the chartering of a ship that had arrived late at the load port in
The owner, ASM, claimed that the impartiality of the two arbitrators who had been appointed to resolve the dispute had been compromised after Mr Duncan Matthews QC, who was sitting alongside them, resigned. He had stepped down because a witness in the arbitration was also involved in another case in which he was acting.
Andrew Smith J rejected the claim to have the remaining arbitrators removed under section 24 of the Arbitration Act 1996 because ASM had not raised the concern “promptly”, once the Matthews had disclosed his involvement in the other case.
Roger Cohen, joint head of Berwin Leighton Paisner’s real estate litigation practice, said: “This ruling explains how the Arbitration Act works and is significant. It applies to all forms of arbitration, regardless of which industry is involved. Real estate practitioners should be aware of the need to make any potential complaints or concerns about an arbitrator quickly and clearly.
“More generally, the law around arbitration is developing all the time, so it is vital that legal advisers within real estate look broadly at all sectors,” he added.
ASM Shipping Ltd v Harris and others
Sarosh Zaiwalla and Kumarlo Menns (instructed by Zaiwalla & Co) appeared for the claimants; Simon Croall (instructed by Waterston Hicks) appeared for the defendants.