header-logo header-logo

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

Arbitration

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

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley adds insurance mergers and acquisitions partner to London office

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll