Skip page header and navigation

Squibb Group Limited -v- Pole 2 Pole Scaffolding Limited [2017] EWHC 2394 (TCC)

Details

Following only three months’ after her decision in Rollit -v- Ballard, (summarised in October’s case digest), Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE has again made clear that the court will not exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time to appeal an arbitration award, where a claimant has failed to preserve its right to challenge.

Factual background

The facts were almost indistinguishable from those in Rollit: the claimant had been wholly unsuccessful in the arbitration proceedings and then failed to pay its share of the arbitrator’s fees within the statutory 28 day period following the award, dated 25 May 2017.  Despite indicating its decision to appeal on 6 July 2017 (already out of time), the claimant did not issue an application until 17 August 2017, causing a total, unexplained, delay of 84 days. On the same day, the defendant was granted permission to enforce the award pursuant to section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the ‘Act’), and the claimant later applied to set aside this order.

The matter was dealt with on the papers, and Mrs Justice O’Farrell swiftly despatched the application on the basis that the claimant had caused a substantial delay with no reasonable explanation – in fact no explanation at all. The merits of the appeal itself were found to be weak and it was unlikely to succeed even if an extension was granted. Moreover, the defendant, being the financially less resilient party, would suffer irremediable prejudice if the application were granted and enforcement of the award further delayed.

Comment

A further warning from the High Court that arbitrators are entitled to exercise a lien over an award until their agreed fees are paid but the appeal clock is still ticking. Non-payment will act as a bar to relief if a party subsequently wishes to challenge the award. To drive the point home, the defendant in this case was awarded its costs in full. 

This article originally appeared in the November 2017 edition of shipping case digest. Other articles include:

Mitsui & Co Ltd and others (Respondents) -v- Beteiligungsgesellschaft LPG Tankerflotte MBH & Co KG and another (Appellants) [2017] UKSC 68

CSSA Chartering and Shipping Services S.A -v- Mitsui O.S.K Lines Ltd “PACIFIC VOYAGER” [2017] EWHC 2579 (Comm)

Orexim Trading Limited -v- (1) Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited (2) Singmalloyd Marine (S) PTE Limited (3) Zen Shipping and Ports India Private Limited [2017] EWHC 2663 (Comm)

From dealing with everyday contracts to major incident emergency responses, our shipping and offshore specialists can help. With one of the largest maritime practices in the field, you can expect clear, commercial advice from experts you trust and who know the problems you face internationally.

We work across the whole of the maritime and offshore industries, advising ship owners, charterers, shipyards, P&I clubs, port and terminal operators, underwriters and traders, oil majors, commodity houses, insurers and reinsurers, offshore contractors and owners of FPSOs, platforms, rigs and other offshore craft and installations.