LJ Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV [2005] EWHC 1345
Contract – Postal Rule – Acceptance – Jurisdiction – Fax – Reasonable Time
Facts
This case concerned a demurrage claim and the appointment of an arbitrator. In April 2004, the complainant, LJ Korbetis sent a fax to the defendants, Transgrain Shipping BV, that accepted one of the three nominated arbitrators. This message asked for their confirmation. The complainant did not receive a response to the first fax and proceeded to send another acceptance by fax in August 2004. It was not until December 2004 that the complainant realised the fax had been sent to the wrong number. As a result, LJ Korbetis sent the acceptance to the correct number and appointed the arbitrator after the expiration.
Issues
The complainant argued that the appointment of the arbitrator was accepted when the fax was sent in April 2004. However, the defendants argued that they had never received the initial faxes and rejected the acceptance they received from the complainant, due to being too late. They argued that the appointment was void. The issue in this case was whether there was a contract between the two parties regarding the appointment and if the postal rule applied.
Decision/Outcome
The court held that the postal rule would not apply when a letter of acceptance was sent to the wrong number or address. As a result of sending the acceptance to the wrong fax number, there had been no communication between the parties and the complainant should have checked that the defendants had received the acceptance; it had been a number of months. They cannot be bound by this, as it was the fault of the complainant that it was never received.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as a description of LJ Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV [2005] EWHC 1345 (Comm). The decision, handed down by Gross J, confirmed that the postal rule does not apply to fax communications and, further, that acceptance sent to a wrong fax number is ineffective. These principles remain good law and have not been displaced by subsequent legislation or appellate authority. The article correctly identifies the core holdings on the postal rule and misdirected communications.
One contextual point worth noting: the case is also regularly cited for the broader proposition, consistent with earlier authority such as Entores v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327 and Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl [1983] 2 AC 34, that instantaneous or near-instantaneous modes of communication (including fax) are generally subject to the receipt rule rather than the postal rule. The article does not spell this out explicitly, but nothing it states contradicts it. The law in this area has not changed materially since 2005.
