SINO CHANNEL ASIA LTD V DANA SHIPPING & TRADING PTE SINGAPORE AND ANOTHER

[2017] EWCA Civ 1703, Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Gross and Lord Justice Flaux, 2 November 2017

Arbitration - Jurisdiction – Agency - Whether notice of arbitration validly served on the claimant - Actual and ostensible authority - Ratification - Arbitration Act 1996, sections 72 and 76

By a contract of affreightment Sino agreed to charter a vessel belonging to Dana. Unknown to Dana, Sino had effectively acted as a fronting company for a Beijing company, BX. All communications were conducted between Dana and Mr Cai, an employee of BX. Disputes arose and Dana commenced arbitration by serving a notice of arbitration on Mr Cai. He did not respond and the arbitration proceeded in Sino's absence. The arbitrator made an award in favour of Dana in the sum of US$1,680,404.15, plus interest and costs, and was received by Sino on 30 June 2015, the first that Sino had heard of the arbitration. In the present proceedings Sino sought a declaration under section 72(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 that the award had been made without jurisdiction as the tribunal had not been properly appointed.