ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Ltd of England
= This decision has received positive treatment: affirmed, applied, etc.
[2007] EWHC 927 (Comm), [2007] 2 Lloyd's Rep 155, [2007] All ER (D) 195 (Apr)
Court: Comml Ct
Judgment Date: 20/04/2007
Cases referring to this case
Annotations: All Cases Court: ALL COURTS
Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)
| Treatment | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
| Applied | Kazakhstan v Istil Group Ltd | [2007] EWCA Civ 471, [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 88, [2007] 2 Lloyd's Rep 548, [2007] All ER (D) 80 (Jun) | CA | 25/04/200 7 |
|
= No treatment has been given--only citation information is available.Catchwords & Digest
ARBITRATION - ARBITRATION AWARD - SETTING ASIDE OF AWARD - ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL ORDERING DEFENDANT TO PAY CLAIMANT - ORDER ENFORCED BY COURT - DEFENDANT FAILING TO PAY CONTENDING CLAIMANT EFFECTIVE DEBTOR - CLAIMANT APPLYING FOR ORDER TO DEBAR DEFENDANT FROM RESISTING APPLICATION TO REMOVE ARBITRATORS - WHETHER DEFENDANT DEBARREDThe claimant owned a vessel which it chartered to the defendant for a single voyage to carry a cargo of gasoil. The defendant failed to deliver the oil on time to a company called Sempra Oil, and accordingly, that company claimed for its losses. The defendant subsequently began arbitration, claiming damages from the claimant for a number of breaches of the charter. The claimant claimed freight and demurrage. The claimant, further, made an application for the removal from the arbitration of two arbitrators who had previously been appointed by the parties. Thereafter, various orders were made by an arbitral tribunal, some of which were in the claimant's favour, and some of which were in the defendant's favour. One of those orders, made on the 7 September 2006, was for the defendant to pay the claimant a sum of £47,859.71 and costs. That order was then enforced by a judgment of the court. The defendant failed to pay the sum, contending that on the balance of the account between it and the claimant, the claimant was effectively the debtor. The claimant consequently applied for an order, inter alia, to debar the defendant from resisting the application.
The claimant submitted that the defendant's wilful failure and refusal to pay the sum amounted to a contempt of court, which in the circumstances would be sufficient for the instant court to order a debarment.
Held - In the circumstances, the defendant had not been in breach of the order of 7 September 2006. If, however, the defendant had been breach, it had not been guilty of a contempt of court for the instant court to debar it from resisting the application.
Accordingly, no order would be made debarring the defendant from resisting the claimant's application.
