Maritime/Shipping arbitration

Maritime arbitration

This Practice Note gives an introduction to maritime arbitration including the main types of disputes that arise and are referred to arbitration and arbitration clauses in common charterparty forms

For more detail, see Practice Note: Maritime arbitration—an introduction.

Maritime arbitration—organisations and rules

This Practice Note gives information on the common sets of arbitration rules used in maritime arbitrations and the relevant administrative bodies. It compares the rules of the four leading institutions of London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA), Society of Maritime Arbitrators Inc (SMA), China Maritime Arbitration Commission (CMAC) and Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (SCMA) on key issues.

For more detail, see Practice Note: Maritime arbitration—organisations and rules.

Carriage of goods by sea—charterparties

This Practice Note explains the law relating to charterparties in the context of an arrangement for the carriage of goods by sea. It explains the key features of voyage charters, time charters, bareboat charters and slot charters and the damages for breach of charter in relation to each type.

For more detail, see Practice Note: Carriage of goods by sea—charterparties.

Carriage of goods by sea—bills of lading

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

Drawing the line—court review of arbitral institutions’ administrative decisions in Brazil (Vale v B3 & others)

Arbitration analysis: Reversing a first-instance judgment that had dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction and legal standing, the São Paulo Court of Appeals held that Brazilian courts may review administrative decisions rendered by arbitral institutions prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The dispute concerned a decision by the President of the Market Arbitration Chamber (CAM) applying Article 3.6 of its Rules to appoint all three arbitrators and to disregard respondent Vale S.A.’s prior appointment of a co-arbitrator. The court held that the provision presupposes both a plurality of parties and an actual ‘absence of consensus’, which was not present in the case at hand, as the multiparty claimants acted jointly and with convergent interests up to that stage of the proceedings. It further held that the statutory right of each party to appoint a co-arbitrator under the Brazilian Arbitration Act cannot be displaced by institutional discretion in such circumstances. The decision reinforces the judicial control over institutional acts that affect fundamental procedural rights in arbitration and clarifies the São Paulo Court of Appeal’s stance on the distinction between jurisdictional and administrative acts in arbitration. Written by Renato Stephan Grion, partner at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, and Thiago Del Pozzo Zanelato, senior associate at Pinheiro Neto Advogados.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents