Reasons for the award

In Pace Shipping Co Ltd of Malta v Churchgate Nigeria Ltd of Nigeria [2009] EWHC 1975 (Comm) an award was challenged primarily on the ground that the arbitrators had not given proper reasons for their conclusion, contrary to ss68(2)(d) and 68(2)(g) of the Arbitration Act 1996. In essence, however, it would seem that the reality of the complaint was that the arbitrators had rejected the applicant’s case and had refused to reconsider it following an application under the slip rule in s57 of the 1996 Act. Once again the English courts have shown their determination not to allow the arbitrators’ factual findings to be challenged indirectly.

Pace Shipping: the facts

Pace Shipping (’PS’) owned the vessel MV Pace. In June 2004 the vessel loaded a cargo of rice for carriage from Thailand to Nigeria. Seven bills of lading were issued. The cargo had been sold under two contracts to Churchgate Nigeria Ltd (’CN’) in May 2004, who was the notify party under the bills of lading which were transferred to it in August 2004 during the discharge of the cargo. CN then asserted that the cargo was damaged during the course of the voyage and that there was short delivery. A claim for about US$500,000 was made.