jurisdiction to be analysed de novo by the Court (as per the Supreme Court’s decision in Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Company v Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Government of Pakistan [2010] UK SC 46). As a consequence, the Court did not consider itself bound by the decision of the tribunal and although the tribunal’s decision could inform and be of interest to the Court, it was not to be given any particular status or weight.
The decision
The charterer presented two arguments on jurisdiction. First, the owner’s claim was a claim under the settlement agreement and that agreement did not contain an arbitration clause. Second, pursuant to the notice of arbitration sent by the owner, the tribunal was appointed to hear disputes under the charterparty and not under the settlement agreement.
The Court concluded that the parties intended for the arbitration clause contained in the charterparty to continue to apply in the event that the sum agreed to settle claims under that agreement was not paid. The wording of the arbitration clause was broad enough to encompass such a claim, even though the settlement agreement to pay US $600,000 represented a new cause of action under a new and binding agreement. The Court considered it inconceivable that the parties could be taken to have agreed that if the agreed sum was not paid, the owner would be unable to pursue its claim in arbitration and, instead, would be required to commence court proceedings. Further, the Court concluded that although the settlement agreement did not contain a choice of law provision, the parties intended that the choice of English law contained in the charterparty would continue to apply. The Court considered that it would be very odd to assume that the settlement agreement, which said nothing about choice of law, was to be governed by any law other than the law that governed the charterparty.