Insurable Interest in Insurance- Adopting A Commercial Solution

Broadgrain Commodities Inc v. Continental Casualty Company [2017] ONSC 4721

Does a CIF seller still have an insurable interest in a cargo policy after the goods are delivered to the carrier (i.e. risk of loss or damage to the goods is transferred to the buyer under the CIF contract)? This was the main debate in the case before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Canadian Marine Insurance Act 1993 is similar to the unamended version of the UK Marine Insurance Act 1906).

Here,a cargo of 26 containers of sesame seeds were sold by the claimant (Broadgrain) on CIF basis and insured by the insurers under an open policy which intended to insure the claimant and its property as well as the property of others in respect of which the claimant had an obligation to insure under various contracts entered into during the insurance period. The cargo was loaded on board the carrying vessel in Nigeria in October. It was common ground that the risk had passed to the buyer at that stage. The full contract amount was paid by 12 December by the buyers. Under the sale contract, the title in the good was to pass upon payment and the buyer granted the seller a security interest in the cargo until all amounts had been paid. When the vessel arrived at its destination, Xingang, on 17 December, it was discovered the goods had been damaged during transit and the claimant sought indemnity under the insurance policy from the underwriters.                    

The insurers moved for a summary judgment to dismiss the action on two grounds: i)the claimant did not have “insurable interest” in the goods at the time of the loss; and ii) the claimant did not sustain any loss as, despite the damage to the goods, it was paid in  full by the buyer for the shipment in question.

On the first point, the insurers sought to rely on two Federal Court decisions(Green Forest Lumber Ltd v. General Security Insurance Co of Canada [1977] 2F.C. 351 (F.C.T.); aff’d [1978] 2 F.C. 773 (F.C.A), aff’d [1980] 1 S.C.R. 176 and Union Carbide Corp v. Fednav Ltd [1997] F.C.J.No. 665 (F.C.T)) which contained statements made in obiter to the effect that, where goods are shipped on CIF terms and the goods are loaded on board the ship, the seller no longer has an insurable interest and cannot claim under a policy of insurance. 

The court, rightly so, indicated that the Supreme Court of Canada in Kosmopoulosv. Constitution Insurance [1987] 1 SCR 2 has adopted a non-technical definition of “insurable interest” pointing out that any real interest of any kind in a marine adventure should qualify as an insurable interest. It was stressed that a contrary solution would act to the detriment of international trade. On that basis, it was held that in the present case even though the risk passed upon loading in October, and the title passed upon payment, the seller’s retention of security interest would qualify as an equitable relation to the adventure such as to give the seller an insurable interest that subsisted throughout the voyage.

However, judge’s finding on the insurable interest point was not adequate to secure victory for the claimant.  The summary judgment for insurers was granted on the second ground. Accordingly, it was held that the claimant had suffered no loss as payment had been made by the buyer in full and the assertion that the buyer had reduced payments on subsequent cargoes was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The case is a yet another illustration of the fact that when defining insurable interest, courts are taking a more liberal stance as advocated in various English judgments (e.g. The Moonacre [1992] 2 Lloyd’s rep 501; National Oilwell (UK) Ltd v. Davy Offshore Ltd [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 380 and The Martin P [2003] EWHC 3470 (Comm)) and not likely to follow the lead of Macaura v. Northern Assurance Co Ltd (1925) 21 LIL Rep 333 to insist that a legal or equitable relation must exist between the policy and the subject matter insured. It is safe, therefore, to say that courts are likely to find insurable interest in cases where they are convinced that the assured has not entered into the policy as an act of wager or is not attempting to make an illegitimate gain from the insurance transaction and as long as some kind of connection (even merely economic) between the insured property and the assured exists.             

More Lex Brexitaria. CJEU OKs AG’s opinion.

The Court of Justice has just announced its decision in Wightman. It confirms the opinion of the Attorney General published last week that the UK is free to withdraw its article 50 notice before 29 March 2019.

In today’s Press Release it is stated.

“In today’s judgment, the Full Court has ruled that, when a Member State has notified the
European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, as the UK has
done, that Member State is free to revoke unilaterally that notification.
That possibility exists for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between the EU
and that Member State has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been
concluded, for as long as the two-year period from the date of the notification of the
intention to withdraw from the EU, and any possible extension, has not expired.
The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with
national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council. Such a revocation confirms the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State and brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.”

Another instalment in the Lex Brexitaria is expected later today in the judicial review application concerning article 50 in the Administrative Court which was heard last Friday.

 

In the light of the judgment, the current Prime Minister Mrs May has made  a statement at 15.30 in which she  announced a delay to tomorrow’s meaningful vote in the House of Commons on the Draft Withdrawal Agreement. The Prime Minister hopes to use this delay to address the concerns of MPs regarding the backstop. She could start by getting them to read paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Attorney General’s advice which points out that Northern Ireland will be in a more advantageous position with the EU than the rest of the UK in the event the UK enters the backstop.

Time to stop trying? Attempting to sidestep the ‘rehearing’ nature of a s.67 jurisdiction challenge

GPF GP S.à.r.l. v Republic of Poland [2018] EWHC 409 (Comm)

Overview

The recent decision of the Commercial Court in GPF GP S.à.r.l. v Republic of Poland [2018] EWHC 409 (Comm) reinforces what should, by now, be well-known to be the unassailable position that a challenge to jurisdiction under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 takes place as a full rehearing of that challenge and not as a review of the arbitral tribunal’s prior decision on the same issue of jurisdiction.

The patent unpopularity of that position in many quarters of the arbitral community is illustrated by the most recent hard-fought attempt in this case to argue that this approach is not justified and should be restricted wherever possible. The decision demonstrates however that attempts to pick away at the position, post the Supreme Court in Dallah Real Estate v Pakistan [2010] UKSC 46, or to seek by other routes to sidestep the effect of a rehearing will be unavailing.

The decision of Bryan J unsurprisingly but usefully confirms that:

(a) that there is no difference between a question of jurisdiction ratione personae or ratione materiae: both are subject to a rehearing;

(b) that the position is no different where a party fails to raise issues in the arbitration and seeks to raise wholly new points on the s.67 challenge, irrespective of the nature of the jurisdictional aspect in play; and

(c) that resort by a party to ‘waiver’ to preclude the other party from raising such new points on the rehearing

The decision also contains a useful analysis of the concept, in the context of a BIT, of creeping expropriation qualifying as an expropriation in aggregate effect and the application of a BIT arbitration clause in that context (not addressed in this case note).

The Background

In a dispute between GPF (Griffin) and Poland under a BIT between Belgium, Luxembourg and Poland, Griffin claimed that a Polish court judgment constituted an expropriation measure. Griffin financed a property group seeking to invest in the redevelopment of ex-State properties for commercial and residential use. It claimed for violation of the fair and equitable treatment standard in the BIT and for indirect or creeping expropriation, similarly in breach of the BIT, relying on a series of acts or course of conduct by authorities and the court, attributable to Poland. A distinguished tribunal (Prof. Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Prof. David Williams QC, Prof. Philippe Sands QC) held that aspects of Griffin’s claim fell outside the arbitration clause in the BIT and could not be pursued, effectively tying Griffin to reliance solely on the court judgment and not the “prior measures” on which it also relied in support of its FET / expropriation claims.

Griffin challenged the Award under section 67 and, in so doing, supplemented in material aspects its case with new evidence as to the drafting history of the BIT and the “prior measures” and developed additional and different arguments. Poland contended that this was not permissible.

Poland’s Two Points and Bryan J’s Decision

Poland took two points, against the background of the general undesirability of the rehearing rule as eroding the efficacy of international arbitration, buttressed with reference to what the Judge referred to as “the spirited attack on the re-hearing approach undertaken by the editors of Arbitration Law 5th edn” (Robert Merkin and Louis Flannery QC).

(1) A difference between identity of party and scope of dispute jurisdictional issues?

First, Poland argued that the rehearing approach, enshrined in Dallah, was on analysis only applicable in a case which involved a question of jurisdiction ratione personae, i.e., a fundamental issue concerning a claimant who claimed not to be party to the arbitration agreement, and not where the issue arising is one of jurisdiction ratione materiae, or the scope of disputes referred to arbitration.

It argued that the seminal decision of Rix J. in Azov Shipping Co. v Baltic Shipping Co. [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 68, on which Lord Mance’s speech in Dallah was said to hinge, concerned only a substantial issue of fact as to whether a party had entered into an arbitration agreement, not a scope of disputes issue. Reference was also made to a s.67 decision of Toulson J in Ranko Group v Antarctic Maritime SA [1998] ADRLN 35 (post Azov) in which, he held that it would be wrong for the courts to rely on new evidence which “could perfectly well have been put before the arbitrator, but was not placed before him, and with no adequate explanation why it was not”. Toulson J based his decision, in part, on the reduced role of the courts under the Arbitration Act 1996. With that in mind, Poland argued that the Court should not seek to extend the rehearing principle any further than was strictly justified, i.e. to ratione personae issues only.

Bryan J’s decision was an emphatic rejection of any distinction either in the cases or in principle and a vigorous endorsement of the validity of the Dallah principle [70]:”In each case, where it is said the tribunal has no jurisdiction, it is on the basis that either there is no arbitration agreement between the particular parties, or that there is no arbitration agreement that confers jurisdiction in respect of the claim made. In each case if the submission is proved, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction as no jurisdiction has been conferred upon it by the parties in an arbitration agreement. In such circumstances it is for the Court under section 67 to consider whether jurisdiction does or does not exist, unfettered by the reasoning of the arbitrators or indeed the precise manner in which arguments were advanced before the arbitrators.”

(2) Waiver by Griffin of its Right to Raise New Points / New Evidence

Secondly, Poland argued that the doctrine of waiver applied, because Griffin could have advanced the new materials and arguments before the arbitrators but failed or chose not to do so and should therefore be taken to have waived them or to be precluded from running them, even at a rehearing. The argument is, unfortunately, only shortly summarised in the judgment.

The difficulty with this argument, as explained by the Judge, is that once it is recognised that a rehearing is an entirely de novo determination, it is difficult to see how and where waiver will arise.

He put it this way [72]: “it is difficult to see how a waiver could arise in circumstances where it is well established that there can be a re-hearing under section 67, a fact parties are taken to know), and in the context of no restriction being set out in section 67 itself restricting what arguments may be re-run, no question of any loss of a right to advance particular arguments on a re-hearing under section 67 can arise”.

However, while conceivably some form of formal abandonment of a point in the arbitral jurisdiction hearing on which the other relied to its prejudice and detriment and which could not be redressed at the rehearing might amount to a waiver, in the present case (as in most if not all) Poland dealt with the ‘new’ points in detail and could not point to any prejudice.

Conclusion

While the logical underpinning, the justifications and the demerits of a Dallah approach will doubtless and understandably continue to be discussed in the arbitral community (as illustrated by an entertaining debate between Sir David Steel and Louis Flannery QC at the recent Quadrant Chambers International Arbitration Seminar), in practical ‘practitioner’ terms it has been a wholly sterile one since 2010, and perhaps it is time to recognise that fact.

Arguing ‘retroactive deprivation’ of arbitral jurisdiction …and how not to make your s67 challenge

Overview

Close upon the heels of the decision in A v B [2017] EWHC 3417 (Comm) (see Commencing LCIA Arbitration: The Perils of Non-Observance of the LCIA Rules) which considered when a challenge to arbitral jurisdiction must be made in an arbitration under the rules of the LCIA and considered the impact of section 73 of the Arbitration Act 1996 upon the interpretation of the relevant LCIA provision, the recent Commercial Court decision in Exportadora de Sal SA de CV v Corretje Maritimo Sud-American Inc [2018] EWHC 224 (Comm) emphasises the need to act swiftly in raising an objection to substantive jurisdiction under section 67.

The context was a highly unusual one: namely, where arbitral jurisdiction existed when the arbitration was commenced under an admitted contract and arbitration agreement but where it was argued that it had been removed subsequently by a supervening governmental act which declared the contract (and arbitration agreement) null and void ab initio.

Does that argument give rise to a section 67 challenge to jurisdiction at all? If so, how do sections 31 and 73 apply to it?

The decision gives stringent guidance on the test under section 73(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 which is to be applied where a party  contends that it “did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the grounds for the objection” to jurisdiction.

Further, the Court’s decision is important in emphasising that on any section 67 (or indeed section 68) challenge, the purpose of the witness statement is to set out evidence and not argument. The habit, into which most practitioners have fallen, of setting out one’s case in full in the witness statement was disapproved by the Court. This reflects the Commercial Court’s increasing insistence upon the proper (and therefore much more limited) deployment of factual witness statements.

The Factual Background to the Section 67 Challenge

Exportadora de Sal is a Mexican salt mining company owned 51% by the Mexican Government and 49% by Mitsubishi Corporation. By reason of the majority state ownership, it was viewed in Mexican law as a state entity and was therefore subject to Mexican administrative law governing the tender and contracting procedures contained in a local Mexican law (the Law of Procurement, Leasing and Public Sector Charges).

Exportadora contracted as buyer with a shipbuilder, Corretje Maritimo, for the construction and sale of a specialist salt barge on 3rd July 2014. The shipbuilding contract and arbitration agreement were governed by English law.

The builder (as the arbitrator held) lawfully terminated the contract on 27th May 2015 leaving a substantial instalment owing from Exportadora. The builder commenced arbitration against the buyer in August 2015.

Initially the buyer took no part in the arbitration. However, a hearing date having been fixed by the arbitrator for September 2016, in July 2016 and shortly before the hearing the buyer appointed solicitors who came on the record stating that they would “contest both liability and quantum (and possibly jurisdiction)”. Jurisdiction as a separate issue was not then pursued but other defences (including one of illegality) were raised. The hearing of liability and quantum was adjourned to 5th December 2016.

Separately, Exportadora’s Órgano Interno de Control (OIC) carried out an audit on 10th August 2016 to ascertain whether Exportadora had complied with the requirements of the Mexican law in question. The OIC audit led to various interventions by the OIC, culminating in a decree by the OIC on 16th November 2016 that the tender process had been irregular and that the award of the contract to the builder was and had been a nullity. Exportadora issued an ‘early termination declaration’ in respect of the contract, as directed by the OIC.

Surprisingly, Exportadora than participated fully in the December 2016 hearing on the merits. Its counsel, taxed by the tribunal with the need to explain matters if it was being alleged that the arbitral process was irregular in some way by reason of the OIC ruling, confirmed that this was “a separate matter” and recognised the validity of the arbitral process.

Shortly after the hearing, on 22nd December, Exportadora then raised the issue and made a jurisdictional challenge. The arbitrator allowed further submissions and then rejected the challenge as raised too late.

Exportadora lost the arbitration.

It then commenced a section 67 challenge, contending that the effect of the OIC decree under Mexican law was to deprive the tender of validity, with the result that it did not have power or capacity to enter into the contract and that as from 16th November 2016 the contract was null and void.

The three points dealt with by the Court

(1) ‘Retroactive deprivation’: a matter going to substantive jurisdiction at all?

While there was contested evidence of Mexican law as to the effect of the OIC decree, the highest that Exportadora could put its case was that, while the arbitrator had not lacked substantive jurisdiction at the outset of the proceedings, “this became so after the OIC Resolution” and that from that time on the arbitrator did not have substantive jurisdiction to decide any of the matters in the arbitration.

Andrew Baker J. held that the section 67 claim failed at the first hurdle, because the effect of Exportadora’s Mexican law argument as to ‘invalidity’, even if correct, was a matter going to the subsequent discharge of an existing contract and not a matter of initial and original capacity to contract and therefore arbitral jurisdiction.

As he put it at [39]: “A doctrine that accepts and acknowledges that a valid and binding contract was concluded, including a valid and binding arbitration agreement, but requires by reason of the act of an administrative body over two years later that it thereafter be treated as if it had never been validly concluded is, by nature, not a doctrine concerning capacity to contract.” Accordingly a ‘retroactive deprivation’ of authority to contract could not impugn the arbitrator’s substantive jurisdiction to make the award.

(2) How does Section 31 apply to a ‘retroactive deprivation’ case?

Section 31 deals with objections to the substantive jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal at two stages: (a) under section 31(1), lack of jurisdiction “at the outset of the [arbitral] proceedings” and (b) under section 31(2), “during the course of those proceedings” where the tribunal “is exceeding its substantive jurisdiction”.

Objectively, Exportadora was to be taken to know that it was contracting with the builder in contravention of Mexican law and (if true) in an unauthorised manner. Accordingly, any objection on that ground, even if it went to jurisdiction, was one which had to have been raised by Exportadora before taking any step in the arbitration. Under section 31(1) of the 1996 Act “must be raised by a party not later than the time he takes the first step in the proceedings to contest the merits”. The time for raising that jurisdictional issue was long past.

For this reason, Exportadora had to put its case as one founded on the OIC decree and on the contention that that decree, as from 16th November 2016, deprived the arbitrator of substantive jurisdiction. In other words, it was a matter which arose “during the course of the arbitral proceedings”. In these circumstances, Exportadora sought to put itself within the “as soon as possible” requirement under section 31(2) (: “Any objection … must be made as soon as possible after the matter alleged to be beyond its jurisdiction is raised”), arguing that its raising of the point on 22nd December shortly after the hearing and before the award met this requirement.

The builder argued that section 31(2) was inapplicable and that only section 73(1) applied, which thereby imposed a more exacting timescale for raising an objection as to jurisdiction than simply “as soon as possible”, namely “forthwith”. It was argued that continuing to act as arbitrator where the arbitrator had jurisdiction initially but then has lost it was not a case of “exceeding” jurisdiction as such, and that section 31(2) deals only with going beyond a jurisdiction which the tribunal has, not a case of subsequent loss of all jurisdiction.

It might be said that this was a hair-splitting argument in that it sought to distinguish “forthwith” from “as soon as possible”. However, the language of section 31(2) does not sit very happily with a “retroactive deprivation of all jurisdiction” argument. This is not surprising since the framers of the Model Law and then the 1996 Act were unlikely to have such a possibility in mind as a bar to arbitral jurisdiction.

The Judge approached the matter on the robust basis that section 31 should be read so as to avoid any gap in coverage, stating at [45]: “That may make the case unusual. But if it were nonetheless viable, I find it entirely natural to describe an arbitrator who continues to act after his temporally limited jurisdiction has expired as exceeding his jurisdiction. This reading of section 31(2) avoids a lacuna in section 31 that seems to me unlikely to have been intended.”

(3) Section 73(1) and the exception for late challenges to jurisdiction

Section 73(1) bars a late objection “unless [the party] shows that, at the time he took part or continued to take part in the proceedings, he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the grounds for the objection”.

The obvious problem for Exportadora was that it had known about the matters on which it relied since, at the latest, 16th November 2016 when the OIC made its decree of nullity or, at the earliest, August 2016 when the OIC carried out its audit and instituted its ‘intervention’ for breaches of the Mexican law in respect of tender procedures. It then took part in the December hearing.

In those circumstances, there was little doubt as to the outcome.

But the Court usefully stressed that given the importance of jurisdiction, a party had to act very quickly indeed, and within a timescale of days not weeks, treating the investigation of any potential jurisdictional argument as one of “the highest priority”. The Judge explained the rational for this as follows at [48]: “The general context in which that question of reasonable diligence falls to be assessed is that when faced with a legal claim asserted through arbitration, logically and practically the first question any respondent can fairly be expected to consider and keep under review throughout is whether it accepts the validity of the process.”

The Court held that Exportadora should have taken “urgent advice” as soon as it learnt of the OIC decree and “treated with appropriate priority” should have objected within one week. The Court would have gone further if necessary and said that with the background since August, it should have objected “within a working day or two” of receiving the decree.

Witness Statements in section 67 (and section 68) challenges: the Correct Approach?

The general guidance to witness statements in the Commercial Court Guide (at Part H1.1(a) of the 10th Edition) is that “the function of a witness statement is to set out in writing the evidence in chief of the witness”. The Court is increasingly hard on statements that argue the case or recite documentation with strict page limits.

No specific guidance on witness statements is given in Part O, dealing with Arbitration Claims, (beyond in relation to section 68 challenges, that these “must be supported by evidence of the circumstances on which the claimant relies as giving rise to the irregularity complained of and the nature of the injustice which has been or will be caused to the claimant”: O8.4). Generally the place to argue the case is in the Claim Form which “must contain, among other things, a concise statement of the remedy claimed and, if an award is challenged, the grounds for that challenge”: O3.1.

However, as the Judge noted in this case, on section 67 (and 68) applications, a practice has grown up of serving a very full witness statement with the Arbitration Claim Form. He saw as this as having arisen because of “the perceived convenience in a section 67 claim of setting out the claimant’s detailed case as to the material facts, with explanatory comment or an outline of the proposed argument, in a single, main supporting witness statement from the claimant’s solicitor.” [25].

Andrew Baker J. in the course of his judgment disapproved of this practice.

He laid down some ‘reminders’ which practitioners will do well to bear in mind for the future: see at [25] to [27].

  • “Where the material facts will be proved by contemporaneous documents, whether generated by the original transaction or by the arbitral proceedings, the proper function of a witness statement may well be only to serve as the means by which those documents can be got into evidence by being exhibited.”
  • “The claimant’s case as to what those documents prove, and as to the conclusions to be drawn, can and should be set out in the Arbitration Claim Form as part of the statement of the “Remedy claimed and grounds on which claim is made“, a statement often produced in the form of a statement of case attached to the Claim Form.”
  • “The content of any witness statement, beyond a bare identification of exhibited documents, can and should be limited to matters of fact intended to be proved, if disputed, by calling the maker of the statement as a factual witness at the final hearing of the claim.”

Where (as is likely) this approach has not been taken or ‘old-style’ statements are being considered, then a further requirement was stressed:

  • “If a witness statement served with the Arbitration Claim Form has not been properly limited in that way, … it is essential, if the maker of the statement is to be called as a witness at the final hearing of the claim, that proper thought is given to which parts of the statement it is necessary or appropriate to take as their factual evidence in chief. That should preferably be done well ahead of the hearing. Any dispute over what should be allowed as evidence in chief can then be identified and resolved, by the court if necessary; the parties can then prepare cross-examination limited accordingly; and the hearing can then be listed upon the basis of a time estimate that is better informed.”

In cases where the underlying facts are not in reality contentious but how they are to be argued is, this restatement of approach is likely to see the disappearance of any proper need for a full witness statement. The case can be summarised in pleading form in the Claim Form (and argued at fuller length in the skeleton, which witness statements often seek to foreshadow) and the accompanying statement limited to a vehicle for appending the relevant underlying documentation.

Arbitral Appeals under s.69…No Second Bites? – Simon Rainey QC and Peter Stevenson

Agile Holdings Corporation v Essar Shipping Ltd [2018] EWHC 1055 (Comm)

Overview: second bites at s.69(3)?

The English statutory regime for appeals against arbitration awards on questions of law under s.69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, as is well known, applies a two stage process: (i) the application of permission to appeal and, (ii), if permission is granted the appeal itself.

Section 69(3) sets out the matters on which the Court is required to be satisfied as pre-conditions for granting permission to appeal. Where a party unsuccessfully resists permission on the basis that some or all of the requirements are not met, can it nevertheless reargue the point or points all over again on the appeal proper? 

The position and the few cases in this area were recently considered by the Commercial Court in Agile Holdings Corporation v Essar Shipping Ltd [2018] EWHC 1055 (Comm).

The answer is: “it depends”.

How the issue arose

The claimant sought permission to appeal against an arbitration award on a question of law arising from the Award. The defendant opposed permission on various grounds including a submission that the tribunal had not been asked to decide the relevant question (and therefore that the threshold requirements of s.69(3) of the Arbitration Act were not met). It was contended that the argument now being sought to be run had never been argued in that way before the arbitrators. The claimant disputed that and put in evidence of the written submissions and the transcript of the oral submission. The Judge granted permission, rejected the submission and held that the point had been argued. He refused an application by the defendant for an oral hearing on the point.

On the full appeal, the defendant sought to re-open the issue and re-argue its original submission.

The Commercial Court’s decision

The Judge (HHJ Waksman QC, sitting as a deputy Judge of the High Court) allowed the appeal in full. On the s69(3)(c) point, he held that:

(i) the exercise undertaken by the judge granting leave to appeal involves a detailed consideration of the threshold questions;

(ii) once leave has been granted, there is every reason to move onto the merits of the question without the distraction of re-litigating tangential points which have already been decided;

(iii) a party cannot resist the appeal on the basis that the threshold requirements of s.69(3)(a) and (d) are not met. Those issues arise exclusively at the leave stage and the decision of the judge at that stage is final;

(iv) the position is different in respect of the requirements of s.69(3)(c) because, whether a point was put to the tribunal is tied to the issue of whether there is a question of law arising out of the award at all;

(v) however, while the Court hearing the appeal may not be bound as to whether the question arises from the award, it should give considerable weight to the decision of the judge granting leave.

Simon Rainey QC, leading Peter Stevenson, represented the successful appellant.

The Detailed Reasoning of the Court

The defendant submitted that the Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal because the threshold requirements of s.69(3) were not met.

In support of that proposition it relied upon two authoritiesMotor Image v SCDA Architects [2011] SGCA 58, a decision of the Court of Appeal of Singapore, and The Ocean Crown [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 468 a decision of Gross J (as he was).

(1) In Motor Image v SCDA Architects, the Singaporean court considered identical appeal provisions in s.49 of the Singapore Arbitration Act 2002. The judge at first instance (Prakash J., as she was) had granted permission to appeal a question of law under those provisions. When the same judge heard the appeal she decided that the question did not arise on the facts as decided by the tribunal. She took the view that as a result the appeal should be dismissed. The Court of Appeal agreed. It held that this sort of point could be reargued on appeal because it went to the very jurisdiction of the court to hear the appeal in the first place. In other words, the grant of leave was a finding that the court had the relevant jurisdiction. So if on further analysis, one of the threshold conditions was not made out, the court was actually deprived of jurisdiction and could not hear the appeal.

HHJ Waksman QC rejected that analysis. He held that once leave has been granted, the question of whether the Court has jurisdiction to determine the appeal has been determined. Subject to any challenge to that decision, the Court has jurisdiction to determine the appeal. The effect of this finding is that it is not open to a party to meet an appeal under s.69 by re-arguing points which relate exclusively to the threshold requirements for permission. Specifically the Judge held that a party cannot re-argue (i) that the determination of the question will not substantially affect the rights of the parties (s.69(3(a)); or (ii) that it is not just and proper for the court to determine the question (s.69(3)(d)).

(2) The decision The Ocean Crown was of a different nature. In that case there were three separate questions of law for appeal for which permission had been granted. The third question involved the allegation by the appellant that the tribunal had sought to restrict the ambit of a well-known legal principle concerning salvage remuneration and had thereby committed an error of law. The respondent argued that the tribunal had done no such thing but was merely dealing with how that principle was to be applied on the particular facts of the case. On that analysis there was no error of law at all.

Gross J. held that, in determining whether a question of law arises out of the award (a pre-requisite of allowing an appeal) the court is not bound by the decision of the judge granting leave.

As HHJ Waksman QC noted, Gross J’s decision not concerned with the threshold requirements of s.69(3) of the Act. It is concerned with whether s.69 is engaged at all: s.69 only permits appeals on questions of law arising from an award (s.69(1)). The Judge described this as ‘the Law Question’ which he distinguished from the issue of whether the question of law was actually put to the tribunal (which he described as ‘the Determination Question’).

However, although not addressing the point head on, the Judge appears to have accepted that the Determination Question is connected to the Law Question and is therefore not merely a threshold requirement for obtaining leave, but may also be considered as part of the substantive appeal.

Having drawn this distinction the Judge held that he was not prohibited from reconsidering whether the question of law raised in the appeal was one that the tribunal had been asked to determine. But he emphasised that the Court should give ‘considerable weight’ to the decision of the judge granting leave to appeal, particularly if (i) the decision was made after an oral hearing; and/or (ii) the materials before the judge granting permission are the same or substantially the same as those before the appeal court.

Adopting that approach the Judge reviewed the material advanced by the defendant and held that he was in no doubt that the question of law was one that the tribunal had been asked to determine.

Conclusions

The decision of the Judge is helpful in three respects.

First, it clarifies that the decision of the judge granting permission to appeal is final and determinative of that issue. It is not open to a party to meet an appeal by arguing that the threshold requirements for leave to appeal were not met and leave should not have been granted. In that respect it drew a clear distinction between the position under English law and the approach taken by the Singaporean Court of Appeal in Motor Image v SCDA Architects.

Second, it confirms that when determining whether the question of law arises from the award, the Court hearing the appeal is not bound by the decision to grant leave and, as part of that process, can reconsider whether the question was one that the tribunal was asked to determined.

Third, it provides clear guidance as to the weight that should be given to the decision of the judge granting leave to appeal. If the judge granting leave considered the issue and had the same material before him/her, ‘very considerable weight’ should be given to the original decision.

It is to be hoped that this robust approach discourages defendants who are unsuccessful at the permission stage from re-opening such points thereby rendering the s.69 process more time-consuming and more costly.

Back to bailment. A storm in a coffee cup.

 

In today’s decision in Volcafe Ltd and others (Appellants) v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores SA (Respondent) [2018] UKSC 61 the Supreme Court has overruled the decision of the Court of Appeal on the incidence of the burden of proof in relation to the exception of inherent vice in article IV (2)(m) of the Hague Rules.

The claim arose out of for nine separate consignments of bagged Colombian green coffee beans shipped at Buenaventura in Colombia between 14 January and 6 April 2012 on various vessels owned by the defendant shipowners for carriage to Bremen. They were stowed in a total of 20 unventilated 20-foot containers.

The bills of lading, which were subject to English law and jurisdiction and incorporated the Hague Rules, were on LCL/FCL (less than full container load/full container load) terms which meant that the carriers were contractually responsible for preparing the containers for carriage and stuffing the bags of coffee into them. If coffee is carried in unventilated containers from a warm to a cooler climate the beans will inevitably emit moisture which will cause condensation to form on the walls and roof of the container. This makes it necessary to protect the coffee from water damage by lining the roof and walls with an absorbent material such as cardboard, corrugated paper or “Kraft” paper. This was a common commercial practice in 2012 and was used by the carriers in this case, but when the containers were opened the bags in 18 of them were found to have suffered water damage from condensation.

The case raised the issue of the legal burden of proof at two stages. First, does the cargo-owner bear the legal burden of proving breach of  article III(2) of the Hague Rules, or is it for the carrier, once loss or damage to the cargo has been ascertained, to prove compliance? Second, as regards to article IV.2, and particularly exception (m), what is the burden of proof.. The carrier accepted that he must bear the burden of proving facts which bring the case within an exception, but submitted that once he had done so it is for the cargo-owner to prove that it was the negligence of the carrier which caused the excepted peril (in this case, inherent vice) to operate on the cargo. This was the analysis adopted by the Court of Appeal.

Lord Sumption gave the leading judgment and found that the questions must be resolved by examining the nature of a contract for the carriage of goods by sea. This was a contract of bailment under which the carrier is under an obligation is to take reasonable care of the goods accepted into its custody with a rule that the carrier would be liable for loss or damage to the goods while in its custody unless it could disprove negligence. The scheme of the Hague Rules assumes that the carrier does indeed have the burden of disproving negligence albeit without imposing that burden on him in terms.

In principle where cargo is shipped in apparent good order and condition but is discharged damaged the carrier bears the burden of proving that that was not due to its breach of the obligation in article III.2 to take reasonable care. The Hague Rules authorities, such as Gosse Millard v Canadian Government Merchant Marine Ltd [1927] 2 KB 432 and Silver v Ocean Steamship Co Ltd [1930] 1 KB, bear this out. The true rule is that the carrier must show either that the damage occurred without fault in the various respects covered by article III.2, or that it was caused by an excepted peril. If the carrier can show that the loss or damage to the cargo occurred without a breach of the carrier’s duty of care under article III.2, he will not need to rely on an exception.

As regards the second issue, the burden of proof under article IV (2), pre Hague Rules decisions such as Notara v Henderson (1872) LR 7 QB 225 and The Xantho (1887) 12 App Cas 503 and Hamilton, Fraser & Co v Pandorf & Co (1887) 12 App Cas 518 treated absence of fault as an integral part of the exception of perils of the sea. Against that there is the decision of the Court of Appeal in The Glendarroch [1894] P 226,  holding that the burden of proving that an excepted peril had been occasioned by the carrier’s negligence lay on the cargo owner.

Even if the decision was correct as regards the exception for perils of the sea, it would not apply to the exception for inherent vice. The distinction between the existence of the peril and the standard of care required of the carrier is impossible to make in that context. A cargo does not suffer from inherent vice in the abstract, but only in relation to some assumed standard of knowledge and diligence on the part of the carrier.  Lord Sumption stated:

  1. It follows that if the carrier could and should have taken precautions which would have prevented some inherent characteristic of the cargo from resulting in damage, that characteristic is not inherent vice. Accordingly, in order to be able to rely on the exception for inherent vice, the carrier must show either that he took reasonable care of the cargo but the damage occurred nonetheless; or else that whatever reasonable steps might have been taken to protect the cargo from damage would have failed in the face of its inherent propensities.

The Court of Appeal held that the Deputy Judge’s had misdirected himself in finding that article III (2) meant that the cargo had to be carried in accordance with a system that would prevent damage, and that inherent vice could be demonstrated only if damage was inevitable. The Deputy Judge had found that the evidence did not establish what weight of paper was used for these shipments, except that it was more than 80 gsm, and did not establish how many layers were used, and there was no evidence to show what thickness of paper ought to be used for a given number of layers, in order to avoid condensation damage, and no generally accepted commercial practice this point. The Court of Appeal had made two different findings of fact. First, that there was an accepted industry practice in 2012 for lining unventilated containers for the carriage of bagged coffee, either by using two layers of paper of at least 80 gsm or one layer of at least 125 gsm. Second, that two layers of paper had been used. It therefore followed that the containers had been lined in accordance with accepted industry practice. The Court of Appeal was not justified in overturning the deputy judge’s findings on either of these two critical points.

Lord Sumption concluded:

  1. I would hold that the carrier had the legal burden of proving that he took due care to protect the goods from damage, including due care to protect the cargo from damage arising from inherent characteristics such as its hygroscopic character. I would reinstate the deputy judge’s conclusions about the practice of the trade in the lining of unventilated containers for the carriage of bagged coffee and the absence of evidence that the containers were dressed with more than one layer of lining paper. In the absence of evidence about the weight of the paper employed, it must follow that the carrier has failed to prove that the containers were properly dressed.

 

Today’s decision is of great importance to both carriers and cargo owners. It reiterates the accepted wisdom as regards the operation of the burden of proof in respect of Article III(2), but departs substantially from that  position as regards the incidence of the burden of proof in respect of the exceptions afforded to the carrier under Article IV(2). Although the case concerned the specific exception of inherent vice, the Supreme Court’s decision would apply equally to all the exceptions in Article IV(2) – save for the nautical fault exception in (a) and the ‘catch-all’ exception in (q) which in terms specifically requires the carrier to prove absence of fault on its part or that of its servant or agents.

Advocate General comes out for unilateral right to revoke article 50 notice (terms and conditions apply)

 

Today Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona has given an opinion[1] that Article 50 TEU allows the unilateral revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU, until such time as the withdrawal agreement is formally concluded, provided that the revocation has been decided upon in accordance with the Member State’s constitutional requirements, is formally notified to the European Council and does not involve an abusive practice. Revocation is only possible within the two year period that starts when the intention to withdraw is notified.

The decision of the Court of Justice on this matter is expected later this month.

 

[1] Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-621/18 Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

A couple more cases in the ‘Lex Brexitaria’. 

 

First, last Monday in its Judgment in Case T-458/17 Shindler and Others v Council of the European Union the Court of Justice of the European Union held that the application for annulment of the decision authorising the opening of Brexit negotiations, brought by thirteen British citizens who live in EU Member States other than the UK, was inadmissible. The applicants based their claim on the fact that, as UK citizens living in another Member State, they were unable to vote in the 2016 referendum. They claimed that this had a direct impact on the rights which they derive from the Treaties. and sought to annul the act by which the Council accepted the UK’s notification of intention to withdraw from the EU. The Court noted that, although the decision of the Council authorising the opening of the Brexit negotiations had legal effects as regards the relations between the EU and its Member States and between the EU institutions, in particular the Commission, which was authorised by that decision to open negotiations for an agreement with the UK, it did not directly affect the legal situation of the applicants. The action was dismissed as inadmissible since the Council’s decision did not produce binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of the applicants by bringing about a distinct change in their legal position.

Second, in Susan Wilson v The Prime Minister this Friday, 7 December, the Administrative Court is due to hear an application for judicial review of the UK government’s giving of notice under art.50 on the grounds that “facts recently revealed since the Prime Minister exercised her power under s. 1 of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017(“the 2017 Act”) to notify the European Union (“EU”) of the UK’s intention to leave the EU show that the 2016 referendum (“the Referendum”) on whether the UK should remain a member of the European Union (“the EU”) was vitiated by illegality and/or unlawful misconduct.” This is particularised with reference to the recent finding by the Electoral Commission that serious offences were committed by the designated campaign for leaving the EU and by others, in breach of the statutory framework established by Parliament for the Referendum. The applicants are seeking a declaration that the result of the EU Referendum is invalid and asking for the decision of the Prime Minister to invoke Article 50 to be quashed.

And we still await the CJEU’s decision on whether an article 50 notice can be unilaterally withdrawn by the Member State that gives the notice.

Where is General Average?

Jurisdiction decisions in the shipping context follow each other in close succession. Yesterday we had another, from Males J, of some interest to insurers: namely, Griffin Underwriting Ltd v Varouxakis (The Free Goddess) [2018] EWHC 3259 (Comm).

The Free Goddess, a 22,000 dwt bulker owned by Freeseas, was seized by Somali pirates while en route to Thailand with steel coils. K & R insurers Griffin, based in Guernsey but doing business in London, paid out something over $6 million to free her, whereupon she sailed to Oman. Griffin clearly had a right to take over from Freeseas a pretty cast-iron GA claim against cargo interests: on arrival it duly entered into a settlement agreement with Freeseas under which Freeseas agreed to furnish all assistance, including preservation of security, in claiming GA and also to account to Griffin for all sums received on that basis. GA, as might be expected, was settlable and payable in London.

According to Griffin’s (as yet unestablished) allegations, Freeseas did no such thing. Instead of the obvious course of oncarrying the cargo to Thailand and claiming GA in due course, it sold the ship in Oman, destroying any security for GA and providing cargo with a counterclaim for damages which was likely to dwarf the GA liability in any case. In addition it had allegedly trousered a large sum in interim GA contributions without accounting for it. 

Freeseas not being worth powder and shot, Griffin sued one Ion Varouxakis, the Greek-domiciled owner of the company, for inducing it to break the settlement agreement. They alleged that the damage had been suffered in London and therefore they could invoke Art.7, the tort article of Brussels I Recast. Mr Varouxakis insisted that he could only be sued in Greece, arguing for good measure that this was a suit by an underwriter in a matter relating to insurance under Art.14, so the other exceptions did not apply.

In fact Mr Varouxakis was held to have waived any jurisdiction point, so the claim is going ahead in London anyway. But Males J did go on to give a view on the other points. On the issue of the loss of the right to GA, he regarded the issue of where the loss had been suffered as finely balanced, but expressed the view that the direct damage had been suffered in Oman, where he opined that the right to enforce GA had been effectively lost: the fact that GA had not been paid in London he regarded as a remoter consequence and not in account because of decisions such as Kronhofer v Mayer [2004] All ER (EC) 939. So there would have been no jurisdiction. On the other hand, he thought the loss had been suffered in London as regarded the failure to account, and so would have allowed the claim under that head to go ahead on that head in any event. As for the suggestion that this was a matter relating to insurance, he smartly rebuffed the point: insurance might be the background, but this arose out of an independent settlement agreement.

The second point was fairly obvious: if someone infringes my right to an accounting in London, it is difficult to think of anywhere apart from London where the damage occurs. The third is also welcome: the insurance rules under under Art.14 are ill-thought-out even by Euro-standards, and anything that prevents their becoming any more bloated than they already are can only be a good thing.  

This blog is less sure about the first. Saying the damage occurred in Oman gets pretty close to conflating damage with the act giving rise to it; it also means that the place of the damage in cases of this sort becomes wildly arbitrary, depending on which port a vessel happens to be in at the time. On the other hand, if GA is settled and negotiated in London, it seems fairly convincing to argue that preventing it being settled and paid there causes a direct loss within the Square Mile. Unfortunately, because the claimants won in any case, we are unlikely to see an appeal here. But this shouldn’t be regarded as necessarily the last word.


Forwarder’s right to limit under Montreal Convention

When does the Montreal Convention 1999 cover loss or damage to a cargo under a multimodal contract when that occurs outside the airport? That was one of the questions  before the District Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in In Mozard v Dachser [2018] HKDC 574. A Hong Kong garment exporter engaged the defendant freight forwarder to carry 20 cartons of garments by air from Hong Kong to Lyon, France. The goods reached the buyer but the exporter did not receive payment of the price and argued that the carrier had been in breach of its contract in allowing delivery to be taken without production of the airwaybill which named a bank as the consignee. The exporter had signed the carrier’s shipper’s instructions which expressly incorporated ‘HAFFA’s Standard Conditions’ and received and AWB which was expressly subject to the rules relating to liability under the Montreal Convention. The forwarder accepted that is was liable, but argued that it could limit liability as per the limitations under either the Montreal Convention or the HAFFA standard conditions.

The first issue was whether the loss or damage was covered by the Montreal Convention. The alleged misdelivery had not occurred during actual air flight and it was for the defendant to prove that it occurred within an airport. This was not the case as the only evidence before the court was that the forwarder did not have a warehouse inside Lyon airport. Nor did the Montreal Convention apply to the loss by virtue of the contractual provision in clause 2/2.1 of the AWB: “Carriage is subject to the rules relating to liability established by the Warsaw Convention or the Montreal Convention unless such carriage is not “international carriage” as defined by the applicable Conventions.” The word ‘carriage’ bore the same meaning as in the Convention and therefore the Montreal Convention only applied in relation to loss or damage within the limits set by the Convention.

 

The forwarder’s liability was dealt with under the HAFFA conditions and the relevant liability and limitation provisions were to be found in cl.21. Cl. 21.1 a general exception from liability for damage to or loss or non-delivery of or misdelivery of the goods unless it was proved that this occurred while the goods where in the carrier’s actual custody and under its control and was due to the wilful neglect or default of the forwarder or its servants. In the event of liability being established Cl. 21.5 provided a limitation of HK$200 per shipping package or unit or HK$10.00 per kilogram, whichever is the least. The clause covered loss which was not covered by other clauses in cl.21 as well as causes of loss which were unknown or not capable of being defined or characterised. On the evidence there was no explanation of how the loss here had arisen. There was nothing in the contract or on the face of the AWB to show that the AWB had to be presented for delivery of the goods to be obtained. The AWB was marked ‘Not Negotiable’. Nor was a term to this effect to be implied as the AWB is not a document of title. There was no legal or factual basis to find that the loss here was a fundamental breach or deviation and its specific cause was unknown and fell within cl.21.5 which covered situations where explanation is lacking.

The court then found that the limitation clause satisfied the reasonableness test in  Hong Kong’s Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance which is modelled on the UK Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. First, the parties’ bargaining power were equal and the exporter could have engaged other freight forwarders and, indeed had done so: the reason why it engaged the defendant was simply due to their usual agent switching to work for the defendant. Second, clause 21.5 was inherently relevant to the rates charged by the forwarder as the exporter had the option under clause 21.7 to contract out of the clause 21.5 limits by paying additional charges. Third, the exporter could have effected insurance on the cargo and was in fact in a better position to do so as there was no evidence that the forwarder knew of the cargo’s value and it would be cheaper for the exporter to effect indemnity insurance than for the forwarder to effect liability insurance