Combined notices

Where a series of cargo owners have claims against a carrier under the various bills of lading issued to them, their representative may give a single notice of arbitration to the carrier. Doubtless the intention of such a notice is to trigger as many arbitrations as there are claimants. In Easybiz Investments v Sinograin Chinatex [2010] EWHC 2565 (Comm) the carrier took the point that such a notice, if capable of being construed as requiring a consolidated arbitration, is void. Hamblen J, upholding the view of the arbitrators in a challenge under s67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 against their award on jurisdiction, held that it is necessary to give the notice a businesslike rather than technical meaning and to construe it as legitimately commencing separate but parallel arbitrations.

Easybiz: the facts

Under a voyage charterparty dated 5 May 2008 between the owners, Eazybiz, and Louis Dreyfus Commodities, a cargo of 36,500 mt of soya bean oil was to be carried from Rosario and Paranaguá to two ports in China by the motor vessel BTZ. Ten bills of lading were issued. The bills of lading incorporated the terms of the charterparty, which itself contained a London arbitration clause requiring arbitration in London under the terms of the Arbitration Act 1996. In such a case the default position under the 1996 Act is that each party is to appoint an arbitrator and the two are then to appoint a third who is to act as chairman.