• That despite the body of the documents being in Russian, the heading was in English, which unequivocally included the word ‘arbitration’ and references to the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. • That it was reasonable for Megneco to have arranged to translate the documents, or part of them, and it should have done so. The Court held that the letter was clearly likely to bring the relevant information to Magneco’s attention. However, the Court left open that valid service is not black and white. Rather, it can be circumstantial: the fact that notice of an arbitration is received in England in a language other than English should not in itself affect the validity of the notice, though it may do so, depending on the circumstances. It is easy to envisage some circumstances in which it would not amount to proper notice.
Background A dispute over delays arose between Glencore and Conqueror as parties to a voyage charter party. Instructions for the vessel to remain in port pending further instructions were given by Glencore via its employee, Mr Oosterman, from his company email address. Delays ensued as a direct result of Mr Oosterman’s instruction. Conqueror claimed damages for the detention of the vessel totaling some US$43,000 and commenced arbitration when the balance remained unpaid. All correspondence relating to the arbitration was addressed to Glencore and sent to Mr Oosterman’s email address. Glencore took no part in the arbitration and was unaware of the proceedings until it received the award (in Conqueror’s favour) by post. Glencore applied under section 72 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to have the award set aside, claiming the notice of arbitration was invalidly served by being sent to Mr Oosterman’s email address. The Commercial Court considered the application of agency principles in determining whether Mr Oosterman had actual or ostensible authority to accept service of a notice of arbitration on behalf of Glencore.