News & Updates

07 Dec Disputes Arising From The Agreement

The Case of Fiona Trust and Holding Corp. e.a. against Youri Privalov e.a. was tried in late December 2006 by the Court of Appeal. The dispute stems from eight charter parties by a company that owns ships of the Russian Sovcomflot Group as owner and three separate chartered companies on the Shelltime 4 form between February 2001 and September 2003. However, charter disputes were only a small part of a general and complex dispute before the English High Court (the “main dispute”) between Sovcomflot and its many subsidiaries and persons who allegedly bribed directors and employees of the Sovcomflot Group. Sovcomflot owned and operated a large fleet of ships through Fiona Trust. Fiona Trust`s various claims (the “plaintiffs”) amounted to $370,000,000. With respect to charter disputes, it was alleged that they were obtained by corruption and that they contained very favourable conditions for charterers.

(c) an arbitration agreement must be concluded in writing. An agreement is written if it appears in a document signed by the parties or in a means of correspondence, telex, telegram or other means of telecommunications that provide a record of the agreement, or in an exchange of claims and declarations of defence in which the existence of an agreement is alleged by one party and not disputed by another. This decision reminds us that, as always, caution must be exercised in the development of jurisdiction clauses. In particular, the parties must bear in mind that the Court will not adopt a general approach to jurisdiction, but will, if necessary, distribute disputes arising from separate agreements within their respective jurisdictions, even if disputes arise from a subsequent agreement that was not contemplated at the time of the first. The Court will agree with the intention of a subsequent agreement and decide whether it is a second or a first dispute. This is particularly important when a party believes that a subsequent arbitration agreement will take over such confidentiality of a dispute: this decision shows that this is not necessarily the case. “Any dispute arising from or related to this contract is settled definitively by one or more arbitrators appointed under these rules, in accordance with the Arbitration Regulations of the International Chamber of Commerce.” The direct application of the Fiona Trust Principles to the Construction Act is therefore made more difficult by the fact that Parliament seems to have envisaged, for such “hybrid contracts”, that the right to a decision would only apply partially. This is confirmed by previous CBT decisions, which have refused to impose adjudication decisions made under such contracts, when they dealt with issues excluded from the definition of construction operations in the construction enterprise (a recent example last year is Severfield (UK) Ltd/Duro Felguera UK Ltd. (Short description of the contract under which disputes, controversies, disputes or claims have arisen).

“There will, of course, be cases where the assertion that no contract has been entered into necessarily implies a refusal of conciliation. Cases of non-factum or refusal of an agreement or an error regarding the identity of the other contracting parties are cited as examples.

No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.