Under English law, a B/L holder may be bound by a series of invisible provisions of the charter part[8] as long as the B/L and the charter party concerned overcome a number of obstacles known as „founding rules”. [9] It has long been established that an arbitration procedure is contractual and therefore cannot be required of a party to submit a dispute without agreement to arbitration. However, in the maritime sector, it is customary for a compromise clause to be extended to third parties. [1] On 8 December 2005, while the cargo was unloaded, Axa-Senegal, on behalf of the recipients, claimed some loss and deterioration of the cargo and demanded a bank guarantee of 67 million CFA ($106,000) under the jurisdiction of the Senegalese courts. The owner P-I-Club rejected the requirement for a bank guarantee and offered to submit an amending letter („LoU”) to the club`s usual terms, subject to arbitration based in London or the jurisdiction of the English courts. Meanwhile, Axa-Senegal asked the Dakar Court to stop the ship as a guarantee of a provisional request of 54 million CFA ($85,000). „If the parties are required to go to arbitration proceedings in the event of a dispute, we would recommend to StormGeo that a detailed travel assessment report (DVER) be completed prior to arbitration. This provides a significant detailed breakdown of all the events that occurred during the trip, the facts presented in the VPR and the justification for the application of the conditions of the charter party. [6] Mariam Goldby, `Incorporation of Charter party Arbitration Clauses into Bills of Lading: Recent Developments` (2007) 19 Denning Law Journal 171-180.
While weather data from an independent provider such as StormGeo is unlikely to resolve any claims, the data is often included in speed and fuel damage disputes and can help parties avoid arbitration. The agreement that arbitration must be „maintained” in a given place indicated that all aspects of arbitration would take place there, including possible judicial review proceedings. It would be surprising (to say the least) that an arbitration takes place in one place, but is subject to the procedural law of another place. Indeed, Daewoo could only refer to a notified case in which the court had ever found such a „bifurcation” [2]. This case was distinguished and limited to its particular facts, as was the case in at least two other cases notified. When he was sued by the beneficiary, the shipowner paid compensation and then took legal action against the original charterers within one year of the dismissal. The owner considered that another time requirement applied to the Hague regulations, which applied to the debt invoices and the chartered part, for one year. The owner attempted to argue that the time requirement was that of the Hague rules and not of the compromise clause of CENTROCON. However, the judge ruled that the three-month period applied to all charter holiday claims, regardless of when they were created. The judge stated that the Hague regime applied to claims against a carrier and not to a carrier. The result was that the judge decided that the COMPROMISE clause CENTROCON and its priority time limitation on time limitation in the Hague rules.
