UK: Nestor Maritime v Sea Anchor, The "VEMACAPE": A Guide On How To Deal With A "Serious Irregularity" Challenge To An Arbitration Award

Like other major industries, the shipping industry is a regular user of arbitration. A recent decision serves as a reminder of how much the English Commercial Court remains committed to ensuring that this avenue of dispute resolution continues to offer a reliable and efficient solution to feuding parties.

The benefits of arbitration

The principal benefits of international arbitration are supposed to be a knowledgeable tribunal, privacy, finality and enforceability. As concerns the first benefit, it is fair to say that the English Commercial Court (and above) has its fair share of judges who were previously leading shipping lawyers and who are very capable of reaching the right commercial result whilst applying the law accurately.

So far as privacy is concerned, the benefit is perhaps overstated. If a dispute is of general public or commercial interest, it is often quite difficult to keep it 'under wraps'. It may be in the interest of one side or the other to give the dispute publicity and that can happen regardless of the duty of confidentiality that attaches to the arbitration. This happens in arbitration disputes across all industries from shipping to reinsurance to telecoms to mining.

Furthermore, the fact that arbitration awards can be and often are challenged in the public forum of the court (e.g. s.68 challenges) means that any privacy that previously attached will be lost.

Accordingly, it is the third supposed benefit that really tends to give arbitration the edge over conventional litigation. Because of the New York Convention and, in particular, the quality of enforceability that it confers upon an arbitration award, it is often a far more potent instrument than a court judgment, enforceability of which often depends on bilateral treaties between the UK and the country of enforcement.

The recent case of Nestor Maritime SA v Sea Anchor Shipping Co Ltd [2012] The "VEMACAPE" EWHC 996 demonstrates once again the English Commercial Court's determination to ensure that the principle of finality and enforceability of arbitration awards in practice is not just an aspiration expressed in a statute.

The facts on "VEMACAPE"

The underlying dispute was not untypical. A Panamax tanker was sold by one party to another. The vessel turned out to be in a lot worse condition than was physically possible according to its Class documentation. The Buyers suspected that its Class documentation, in particular its metal thickness records, had been falsified by the Sellers and so brought a claim in deceit. The vessel sale/purchase agreement contained a standard LMAA arbitration clause. As the arbitration progressed, the evidence of fraud became ever more compelling. It took almost a year for the arbitrators to produce their award but when they published it in May 2011, the tribunal unanimously found the Sellers had committed deceit and found them liable to pay the Buyers millions of dollars in damages.

Main challenges to an English arbitration award

Under English law, specifically the Arbitration Act 1996, there are two principal ways of challenging an English arbitration award. The first is on a point of law (s.69). However, it is necessary to show that the arbitrators got the point seriously wrong or they probably got it wrong and the point is one of general public importance. There is a permission stage which filters most cases out before they reach a full hearing. However, a more general attack on an award can be launched under s.68. On the face of the wording of the statute, this is reserved for cases where the proceedings, the tribunal or the award are affected by a 'serious irregularity'. 'Serious irregularity' includes such things as the tribunal acting unfairly or partially. There is a comprehensive list of irregularities at s.68(2) of the Act.

The Section 68 remedy was intended for exceptional cases where the aggrieved party has suffered or will be caused 'substantial injustice'. However, where a party has lost an arbitration and just does not like the result, the temptation for it to characterise what has happened to it as 'exceptional' and 'unjust' is often (and understandably, given the emotion that can build up in any litigation) quite strong. Accordingly, over the last decade a fair number of s.68 challenges have been brought.

Not surprisingly, most s.68 challenges fail. However, the problem for the winning party is that a pending s.68 challenge can prove a significant impediment to enforcing an award under, for example, a bank guarantee which will often require the award to be unappealable or unchallengeable before it can be enforced. This is because unlike s.69 challenges, a s.68 challenge automatically receives a full court hearing (reflecting the gravity of the irregularity for which it is supposed to be reserved) and that hearing can, in theory, turn into a retrial of the entire case, but this time in a courtroom. Furthermore, it is not an uncommon tactic for a losing party to an arbitration to commence a s.68 challenge in order to generate a basis for 're-negotiating' the Award.

s.68 and s.69 challenges in the "VEMACAPE"

In the present case, the Sellers took objection to the finding that they had behaved dishonestly. Accordingly, they brought a raft of s.68 and s.69 challenges soon after the Award's publication. The s.69 challenge was dismissed, within a matter of a few weeks at the leave stage. This left various s.68 challenges, the essence of which was that the Tribunal's reasoning supporting their fraud conclusion was, on analysis, deficient and that was a 'serious irregularity'. The Sellers pursued these challenges notwithstanding the fate of the substantively identical s.69 challenge.

The s.68 challenges were due to be heard by the Commercial Court on 3 February 2012, 8 months after the Award had been published and 20 months after the arbitration had finished. However, a week before that hearing, the Sellers served yet another s.68 challenge. This time the target of its complaint was not the Tribunal but the Buyers whom they accused of fabricating evidence in the arbitration which had led to the Tribunal making its fraud finding - and that was an 'injustice'. The Sellers served a suite of new witness evidence in support of their new case.

Even though the Commercial Court was about to and did duly dismiss the existing s.68 challenges, finality suddenly became a dot on the horizon. It would have taken at least two weeks of Commercial Court time to have dealt with the new challenge in full because it essentially required a re-run of the arbitration and given the Commercial Court's current workload, that was not going to happen for 12-18 months, potentially cocking a snook at the principle of finality and enforceability.

However, the problem for the Sellers was that in order to bring a s.68 challenge as of right, the challenge needed to be brought within 28 days of the publication of the award. This tight deadline again reflects the importance of finality of arbitration awards. Nevertheless the Court can and often does grant an extension of time (even though it usually refuses to accede to the challenge itself) unless it considers the challenge could not with reasonable diligence have been brought earlier. This is because the allegations that tend to be made in s.68 challenges tend to be so serious and the Court finds it difficult, as a practical matter, to shut them out on what may be perceived to be a technicality. In light of this tendency, parties will often agree to have the time extension application heard at the same time as the substantive application to avoid a second trip to court. This means that s.68 challenges are generally serious and expensive court hearings.

However, in this case the challenge was not just brought outside the 28 day time limit. It was brought seven months after publication of the award. Nevertheless, where one party produces a raft of new evidence containing very serious allegations of fraud, the starting point for any court is that the witness statements are telling the truth. Even though the other side may serve a raft of responsive witness evidence denying the allegations, no court is going to be able to resolve the inevitable conflict without hearing the evidence and so will be inclined to grant the extension and allow the full hearing to proceed. Accordingly, if a party proceeds to produce a raft of responsive evidence in the context of a s.68 time extension application, it is going to tend to increase both the chances of a full hearing and the time taken to achieve finality.

Tactical response to the out-of-time s.68 challenge

In this case, despite the voluminous nature of the Sellers' new evidence, it suffered from some fatal flaws which could be demonstrated on the documents alone. Mindful of the need to avoid the Court feeling that it had been presented with conflicting accounts which it could not resolve there and then, the Buyers decided to put in no witness evidence from the individuals who had been accused of fraud at all (despite the temptation to do so being strong).

As mentioned earlier, the one 'concrete' hurdle that a party bringing a s.68 challenge out of time must surmount is that "he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the grounds of the objection" earlier (s.73(1)). However, where a party is alleging fraud, it is commonly thought that the principle that 'the perpetrator of a fraud cannot be heard to complain that the victim should have realised that he was being defrauded sooner than he actually realised it' is applicable. What this means in practice is that fraud cases tend to get over this particular hurdle fairly easily. Whether the challenge is let through after that point is a matter of discretion for the judge involving consideration of the factors that one would expect, such as whether the challenger has brought the challenge quickly enough once he has found out the facts and whether the claim is a strong or a weak one. See Kalmneft v Glencore (2002).

The "VEMACAPE" case is noteworthy for a number of reasons. First and most importantly, despite the volume of evidence the Sellers had served in support of their new fraud claim, the Judge was able to reach the conclusion that in light of its inconsistency with the contemporaneous documents, it was "difficult, if not impossible, for the court to give any credence at all to the case now sought to be advanced by the Sellers...". Although previous decisions have emphasised that the strength of the substantive case being advanced is neutral, if the other requirements to achieve an extension of time (not delaying etc) are met (see Thyssen Canada Ltd v Mariana Maritime SA (2005), the practical reality is that if the Court is able to satisfy itself the new case is weak, this is bound to be a significant factor in it deciding whether the other requirements have been met by the challenger so as to justify granting an extension of time.

The fatal flaws in the "VEMACAPE"arbitration challenge

In this case, the Sellers' new evidence was that a UTM technician (a person who uses ultra-sound to measure the thickness of a vessel's structure) was asked by the Buyers to fabricate metal thickness readings in respect of the vessel they had just bought, presumably to manufacture a claim against the Sellers. The UTM technician gave evidence to the effect that he was asked by the Buyers to mark for replacement steel that actually did not need to be replaced, to falsify thickness readings for that steel to justify its replacement, but that his usual practice was not to record the thickness measurements of any steel that was replaced. To top it all, he said he threw away all his rough notes before the end of the job so it was not going to be possible to assess whether this new story was true or not without hearing oral evidence from him and everybody else. However, this new story suffered from one fatal flaw. What this witness, the Sellers and their legal team had failed to appreciate was that there was a lever arch file of this UTM technician's rough notes that had been disclosed in the arbitration and, indeed, was a dedicated trial bundle in the arbitration hearing itself. However, like so many documents that get disclosed in litigation (including those which make it into the trial bundle), it barely saw the light of day. When this bundle of rough notes was drawn to the Sellers' attention by the Buyers' solicitors, as well as the fact that they contained thickness readings for all the steel measured, replaced or not, this elicited a wholesale revision of the UTM technician's story which, to quote the Judge (who quoted the Buyers' counsel) set "new standards for invention".

Furthermore, at the arbitration, although the Sellers had not accused the Buyers of falsifying the UTM readings outright, they had alleged the readings had not been taken properly. The Judge observed that given that the Sellers were very close to alleging a fraud in relation to the UTM readings in the arbitration, this 'new' story was something that they could and should have properly investigated (and discovered, if true) at the time of the arbitration, not 18 months later. Accordingly, when it came to addressing the statutory hurdle of s.73(1) which, strictly speaking, was the first thing that the Judge ought to have considered, it was not difficult for him to conclude that "if there had been the fraud which is now alleged, it could have been discovered with reasonable diligence" before or during the arbitration. One suspects the inherent weakness of the case played a major role in this finding.

By itself the failure to overcome this hurdle was sufficient to dispose of the time extension application.

However, the Judge went on to consider the 'discretionary' factors (per the Kalmneft case).

The Sellers had taken eight weeks from making their alleged new fraud discovery to bringing the s.68 challenge, even though they had 'corroborated' their story within four weeks. The Sellers blamed the Christmas and New Year holidays for the balance of the delay. The Judge said that in the circumstances that was not good enough.

So far as the merits of the new case were concerned, the Judge considered that the new story was, putting it neutrally, not coherent. However, that aside, another problem with the Sellers' new case was that the essential complaint was that the Sellers' witnesses gave false evidence in the arbitration - they allegedly concealed the fact that they had instructed the UTM technician to fabricate the thickness readings. However, in the earlier case of Elektrim v Vivendi (2005) (a s.68 challenge case in which the Buyers' legal team had also been involved), the Court had made it clear that it was not enough for s.68 to apply for a witness to have given false evidence. The party to the arbitration itself, which in practice means the controlling mind of the company, needs to have given false evidence. Since there was no basis for any such suggestion, the challenge was "doomed to failure" on that ground as well.

The English Court stands firm on challenges to arbitration awards

So drawing together the threads, what the "VEMACAPE" case demonstrates is that the English Commercial Court is absolutely committed to protecting arbitration awards. Section 68 challenges really are meant for those exceptional cases where something has gone gravely wrong in the arbitration process, not just that one party does not like the result (which is almost always going to be the case). However, if you are on the wrong end of an arbitration award and feel seriously aggrieved about it, do not assume that you can take a relaxed approach to bringing the challenge in terms of timing. You need to get your skates on otherwise you may well be shut out before you have a chance to develop your case properly. If, on the other hand, you are facing a s.68 challenge you should carefully consider whether you actually need to do a 'tit for tat' evidential response which may just result in an unresolvable swearing match, or whether there is one or two killer points that render such a swearing match irrelevant. In the final analysis, English Commercial Court judges start from the position that they need very powerful reasons to be persuaded to interfere in an arbitration award and one can count on a single hand the number of successful s.68 challenges there have been in the last 15 years since the Arbitration Act came into force.

Miranda Karali and Leigh Williams are partners and Simon Jackson is a legal director at Clyde & Co which represented the successful Buyers in the "VEMACAPE" case. Leigh Williams was also junior counsel to Timothy Hill QC both in the arbitration and in the Commercial Court. Simon and Leigh also acted for Elektrim SA in the Elektrim v Vivendi case cited by Eder J in the "VEMACAPE" case (a €5bn dispute over ownership of Poland's then largest mobile phone company, PTC).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.