Staying Court Proceedings In Favour Of Arbitration Where The Existence Of The Arbitration Agreement Is Disputed

Golden Ocean Group Ltd v. (1) Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi Tbk Ltd and (2) Genuine Maritime Ltd (Barito) [2013] EWHC 1240 (Comm)

The Commercial Court has granted permission to serve an arbitration claim form out of the jurisdiction, and issued an interim anti-arbitration injunction to constrain a Singapore arbitration, in circumstances where there was a dispute as to which of two defendants was party to a charterparty and as to the existence of an agreement for Singapore arbitration. In so deciding, the Judge set out the principles applicable to a stay of proceedings where the existence of an arbitration agreement is disputed.

The background facts

The proceedings arose out of a dispute as to whether Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TbK Ltd ("HIT") or Genuine Maritime Ltd ("Genuine"), said to be related companies, was the Disponent Owner of the vessel Barito under a charterparty with the Claimant, Golden Ocean Group Ltd ("Golden Ocean"), as the Charterer. The charter was subject to English law and London arbitration. Golden Ocean redelivered the vessel early, giving rise to cross claims for overpaid hire/value of bunkers and damages for early redelivery.

Golden Ocean commenced London arbitration proceedings against Genuine but Genuine commenced Court proceedings in Indonesia. The latter were settled by an addendum dated 8 March 2010 between Golden Ocean and Genuine, which provided that all disputes were to be determined in arbitration in Singapore under English law and that the charterparty was to be amended to reflect this.

By November 2010, Golden Ocean had reached the conclusion that the original fixture was in fact with HIT and that the addendum with Genuine was of no effect and/or was void for mutual mistake. Golden Ocean therefore commenced London arbitration proceedings against HIT. In January 2012, Genuine went into liquidation. In November 2012, the London Tribunal published its award, holding that Golden Ocean had contracted with HIT and that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the merits of the substantive dispute under the charterparty.

In January 2013, Genuine commenced arbitration in Singapore. In February 2013, Golden Ocean issued an English High Court claim form against both HIT and Genuine seeking inter alia: (1) a declaration that the charterparty was between Golden Ocean and HIT and that Genuine was not a party to it; and (2) an anti-arbitration injunction restraining Genuine from pursuing the Singapore arbitration...