The database contains 43 case summaries relating to Arbitration/Jurisdiction Clauses in Maritime Law. The summaries are sorted in reverse date order with 20 summaries per page. If there are more than 20 summaries, use the navigation links at the bottom of the page.
Siderurgica Mendes Junior S.A. v. The "Ice Pearl", 1996 CanLII 2746 (BC SC)
In this cargo case the Plaintiffs argued that an arbitration clause in a charter party should not be given effect to on two grounds: First, that the bill of lading contained a "supersession clause" that did not specifically refer to the arbitration provision and, second, that the Defendant had waived its right to arbitration. On the first issue, the Court held that the "supersession clause" did not oust the arbitration agreement. On the second issue, the Court seemed to question whether there could be waiver or estoppel in relation to an agreement to arbitrate. The salient facts were that the Defendant had filed an appearance and had promised to file a Statement of Defence but had not yet done so. The Defendant had also issued a Demand for Discovery of Documents and had requested particulars of the Statement of Claim. The Court referred to the Commercial Arbitration Code which provides that an application for a stay shall be brought not later than when submitting the first statement on the substance of the dispute. The Court held that since the Defendant had not yet filed a defence it had not submitted its first statement on the substance of the dispute and was therefore not precluded for requesting a stay.
Trans-Continental Textile Recycling v. The "Erato II" and "MSC Giovanna", 1995 CanLII 3547 (FC)
In this matter the Defendant sought to rely on a jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading that selected New York as the proper forum. The Plaintiff opposed the Defendant's motion for a stay on the grounds, inter alia, that the Defendant had attorned to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The Defendant had filed a Statement of Defence in the action and draft Affidavits of Documents had been exchanged between the parties. It was not until nine months after the defence had been filed that the Defendants brought their motion for a stay. The Court concluded that the Defendants had given every indication of attornment to the jurisdiction and refused the motion for a stay.
Usach Technologies Inc. v. Lamprecht Transport Ltd., No. T-1928-94, (F.C.T.D.)
In this matter the Court enforced a jurisdiction clause, contained in a through bill of lading, in favour of Switzerland. The Plaintiff attempted to argue that the clause had not been properly brought to its attention but the Court held that the Plaintiff knew of the existence of the clause and accepted it.
Arbella S.A. v. The "Aghia Markella", 94 F.T.R. 229
The subject matter of this dispute was whether the Defendant had breached a charter party when it failed to supply the ship on the date specified. The reason the Defendant could not supply the ship is that it had been detained by Canadian Coast Guard. The Plaintiff argued that the arbitration clause was inoperative because, at the time it was entered into, the parties did not contemplate that the dispute would relate to Canadian Coast Guard. The Court disagreed and referred the matter to arbitration in London.
Donohue Inc. v. The "Ocean Link", No. T-1692-92, (F.C.T.D.)
In this matter the Court refused a motion for a stay of Third Party proceedings on the grounds that, first, the Court could not determine on the evidence before it whether a contract with a jurisdiction clause existed and, second, it was likely that if the stay was granted two separate actions would proceed.
Conagra International S.A. v. Seamotion Navigation Ltd., 1995 CanLII 1789 (BC SC)
In this matter the Defendant shipowner attempted to enforce an arbitration agreement contained in a charter party. The case concerned a shipment of wheat from Canada originally intended for Iraq. The case was unusual in that, because of the embargo on shipments to Iraq, the shipment was resold at sea and redirected to Malta. New bills of lading were issued at the request of the shipper so that the new buyer could obtain title to the shipment. The new bills of lading contained a term that incorporated all provisions of the Charter Party "including arbitration clause". The shipowner relied on the new bills of lading as incorporating the arbitration clause in the Charter Party. The Court, however, held that the new bills of lading were not intended to create a new contractual obligation between the shipper and the shipowner but were merely intended to redirect the shipment and to act as documents of title. The application for a stay was refused.