TRANSFIELD SHIPPING INC V CHIPING XINFA HUAYU ALUMINA CO LTD

[2009] EWHC 3642 (Comm), Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, Mr Justice Christopher Clarke, 22 December 2009

Shipping - Charterparty (voyage) concluded subject to details - Application for anti-suit injunction in respect of proceedings in China - Standard of proof - Applicant must show a high degree of probability that there was an arbitration agreement - Delay

Transfield sought an anti-suit injunction in respect of proceedings commenced by Chiping, the defendant, in China in March 2009. The main hearing was about to be held. The parties had negotiated a charterparty in August 2008, the recap of which had been signed stamped and returned to Transfield. The words "SUBJS DETS" featured; it was the applicant's case that these had been included in error. Transfield had suggested London arbitration to which Chiping had stated their preference for Hong Kong arbitration. An email from Transfield ending in a statement that London arbitration had been agreed and that the charterparty was "all clean" was met with silence. Movements thereafter in the aluminium market made it favourable for Chiping to extract itself from the contract and it failed to nominate a vessel. Transfield commenced arbitration in December 2008 and Chiping appointed an arbitrator but disputed that there was a contract or arbitration agreement, and commenced proceedings before the Qingdao Maritime Court.