“Serious irregularity” in arbitration proceedings: section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 under the spotlight – Ducat Maritime Limited v Lavender Shipmanagement Inc. [2022] EWHC 766 (Comm)
A charterparty dispute between Ducat Maritime Limited (“Ducat”) (the charterer) and Lavender Shipmanagement Inc. (“Lavender”) (the owner) has resulted in a successful application under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“the Act”) for the partial set aside of an arbitration award (the “Award”) on grounds that the arbitrator had breached his general duty of fairness.
Background
A dispute arose between Ducat and Lavender in connection with a time charterparty. In accordance with the requirements of the charterparty, Lavender instigated arbitration proceedings against Ducat under the LMAA Small Claims Procedure 2017. Lavender sought USD 37,831.83 by way of unpaid hire charges. Ducat denied the claim (with the exception of certain bank charges and additional war risks premiums) and advanced a counterclaim in the sum of USD 15,070 for the chartered vessel’s alleged underperformance.
The arbitrator found that all of the sums claimed by Lavender were due and owing, with the exception of USD 9,553.92 representing damages which had been claimed for alleged inadequate hull-cleaning. The arbitrator denied Ducat’s underperformance claim and, as such, no deduction of Lavender’s claim was permitted.
As a result of the arbitrator’s findings, Lavender should have been awarded USD 28,277.91 (being the USD 37,831.83 claimed less the USD 9,553.92). This was common ground between the parties. What actually happened was that the arbitrator added Ducat’s failed counterclaim to Lavender’s total claim, the result being that, together with interest, Lavender was awarded USD 53,692.66 i.e. a sum considerably more than the total amount it had claimed.
Upon receiving the Award, Ducat made an application to the arbitrator under section 57(3) of the Act, seeking a correction of the Award on grounds that there had been a clerical mistake or error arising from an accidental slip or omission. In response, Lavender contended that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to act as Ducat was seeking and that the arbitrator had done what he had intended to do. The arbitrator declined Ducat’s application on grounds that there had been “no error or mistake in the calculations”. Ducat made a second application, which was also declined, and which resulted in High Court proceedings being issued.
The Act
Section 68 of the Act provides inter alia as follows:
“68 Challenging the award: serious irregularity.
(1) A party to arbitral proceedings may (upon notice to the other parties and to the tribunal) apply to the court challenging an award in the proceedings on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award.…
(2) Serious irregularity means an irregularity of one or more of the following kinds which the court considers has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant—
(a) failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33 (general duty of tribunal);
…”
Section 33 of the Act provides as follows:
“33 General duty of the tribunal.
(1)The tribunal shall—
(a) act fairly and impartially as between the parties, giving each party a reasonable opportunity of putting his case and dealing with that of his opponent, and
(b) adopt procedures suitable to the circumstances of the particular case, avoiding unnecessary delay or expense, so as to provide a fair means for the resolution of the matters falling to be determined.
(2) The tribunal shall comply with that general duty in conducting the arbitral proceedings, in its decisions on matters of procedure and evidence and in the exercise of all other powers conferred on it.”
The Claim and the Judgment
Ducat’s case was that the “arbitrator had gone so wrong that justice called out for it to be corrected”. It contended that there was a serious irregularity affecting the Award and that that irregularity had caused it substantial injustice, as per section 68 of the Act. Ducat relied on the serious irregularity referred to under section 68(2)(a) of the Act, namely that the arbitrator had failed to comply with section 33 of the Act. Ducat did so on two bases:
(1) The arbitrator had reached a conclusion that was both contrary to the common position of the parties and for which neither party contended, without providing an opportunity for either side to address him on it; and
(2) The arbitrator had made an “obvious accounting mistake”.
As to Ducat’s case on serious irregularity, Mr Justice Butcher held that the arbitrator’s failure to adhere to the common ground between the parties represented a failure to comply with the clear duty set out under section 33 of the Act.
Butcher J also held that a gross and obvious accounting mistake may represent a failure to conduct the proceedings fairly, not because such mistake was extremely illogical but because it constituted a departure from the cases put forward by the parties, without them having had an opportunity to address the arbitrator on it.
As to Ducat’s case on substantial injustice, Butcher J held that it was substantially unjust for a party, by reason of an error such as that made by the arbitrator in this case, to be ordered to pay: (a) about 33% more than was due by way of the principal sum; and (b) interest on its own unsuccessful counterclaim.
As such, Ducat’s claim was successful and it was ordered that USD 9,553.92 of the Award be set aside.
Conclusion
For parties to arbitration proceedings, the Judgment provides some helpful guidance on the recourse available to a party where it considers that a Tribunal has issued an award containing a “glaringly obvious error” and when a correction application under section 57 of the Act is refused.
For arbitrators, the Judgment emphasises the need for parties to be invited to comment on a Tribunal’s findings, prior to an award being made, in circumstances where that award departs from the positions put forward by the parties. Had that happened in this case, Butcher J found that the arbitrator in question might well have reached a different view and proceedings could have been avoided altogether.
Our thinking
Peter Smith
Building the Case for Family Business Arbitration in the GCC Region
The GCC has one of the highest concentrations of family businesses anywhere in the world.
Emma Preece
EG quotes Emma Preece on the Picturehouse and BNY Mellon rent arrears cases
“The case is being closely watched by landlords and tenants alike as the impact of the pandemic lives on in the commercial property sector”
Ghassan El Daye
The Business Breakfast interviews Ghassan El Daye on the legal procedures surrounding international extradition
The Business Breakfast interviews Ghassan El Daye on the legal procedures surrounding international extradition
Jason Freedman
Nowhere to go – Recent High Court case highlights roadblock to overcoming director deadlock
Rachel Warren
Financier Worldwide quotes Rachel Warren on the UK’s Economic Crime Act
Evaluating the UK’s Economic Crime Act
Pierre Bydzovsky
Update on FIFA-related proceedings in Switzerland
An update on the TV rights appeal trial for the World Cups and the on-going trial against former FIFA president and former UEFA president.
Stephanie Bonnello
Stephanie Bonnello writes for the Practical Law Dispute Resolution blog on witness evidence
When are witness summaries permitted instead of witness statements and when should material be struck out from a witness statement?
Oliver Auld
Unexplained Wealth Orders & Trustees
Learn about Unexplained Wealth Orders, what they are, who can obtain them and the implications that exist for trustees.
Simone Sancandi
Sports Arbitration Rules and Roster of Dedicated Arbitrators
The Bahrain Chamber of Disputes Resolution publishes a brand-new set of Sports Arbitration Rules.
Joe Edwards
Donoghue v Stevenson: 90 years on from a snail and a bottle of ginger beer
Sara Sheffield
Developments in the UAE
The rising strength of the United Arab Emirates as a commercial powerhouse has continued as the Covid-19 pandemic recedes.
Sonia Kenawy
Sonia Kenawy writes for New Law Journal on cryptocurrency and security for costs
Sonia Kenawy writes for New Law Journal on cryptocurrency and security for costs
Charlotte Healy
Charlotte Healy and Katie Bewick write for Pharmacy Business on expert determination
Charlotte Healy and Katie Bewick write for Pharmacy Business on expert determination
Charlotte Posnansky
Depp v Heard - will transparency in the English family court increase public confidence or feed the insatiably prurient public appetite?
Hope Wilson
Hope Wilson writes for the EG Legal Q&A on qualifying criteria
Hope Wilson writes for the EG Legal Q&A on qualifying criteria
Katie Bewick
Limitation periods for fraud, concealment or mistake: know your limits
Some recent notable cases have considered the appropriate test to apply when assessing a claimant's knowledge.
Ghassan El Daye
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2022 - UAE
Ghassan El Daye and Ahmad El Sayed write for Lexology's Getting The Deal Through on the enforcement of foreign judgments in UAE.
Durra Al Ali
Durra Al Ali and Simon Heatley write about disclosure duties for Thomson Reuters Practical Law
Disclosure duties for clients and their lawyers
Patrick Gearon FCIArb
Dispute Yearbook 2022
Bahrain has played an important role in the development of the international dispute resolution sector.
Patrick Gearon FCIArb
New era, new rules
In its first update since 2007, DIAC has unveiled a new set of arbitration rules this year.