header-logo header-logo

Arbitration

25 March 2010
Issue: 7410 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Buyuk Camlica Shipping Trading and Industry Co Inc v Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd [2010] EWHC 442 (Comm), [2010] All ER (D) 176 (Mar)

There was no duty on a judge, in giving reasons, to deal with every argument presented by counsel in support of his case. The same applied to arbitral tribunals. A failure to deal with an argument was not the necessary equivalent of a failure to deal with an issue under the Arbitration Act 1996, s 68. That section was designed to cover only those essential issues which had been put to the tribunal and which were necessary to be dealt with for a fair decision on the claims.

It did not mean that the tribunal had to decide all issues raised by the parties. The legislative purpose of s 68(2)(b) was to ensure that all crucial issues were dealt with. It might be that certain issues would fall away in the course of a tribunal’s deliberations. The question whether or not the tribunal had failed to deal with an essential issue could not be decided on

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll