Maritime/Shipping arbitration

Maritime arbitration

This Practice Note gives an introduction to maritime arbitration including the main types of disputes that arise and are referred to arbitration and arbitration clauses in common charterparty forms

For more detail, see Practice Note: Maritime arbitration—an introduction.

Maritime arbitration—organisations and rules

This Practice Note gives information on the common sets of arbitration rules used in maritime arbitrations and the relevant administrative bodies. It compares the rules of the four leading institutions of London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA), Society of Maritime Arbitrators Inc (SMA), China Maritime Arbitration Commission (CMAC) and Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (SCMA) on key issues.

For more detail, see Practice Note: Maritime arbitration—organisations and rules.

Carriage of goods by sea—charterparties

This Practice Note explains the law relating to charterparties in the context of an arrangement for the carriage of goods by sea. It explains the key features of voyage charters, time charters, bareboat charters and slot charters and the damages for breach of charter in relation to each type.

For more detail, see Practice Note: Carriage of goods by sea—charterparties.

Carriage of goods by sea—bills of lading

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Arbitration News

Swiss Arbitration announces Belgrade seminar on Swiss arbitration hub status

Swiss Arbitration has announced a free seminar scheduled for 23 May 2025 at the Hilton Hotel Belgrade, examining Switzerland's role as an arbitration hub and the application of Swiss substantive law in international transactions. The event, organised by Swiss Arbitration Ambassadors for the Balkans, will feature two panel discussions with legal professionals from Switzerland and the Balkans. The seminar aims to examine Switzerland's position in international arbitration and its legal framework's relevance to cross-border disputes.

Arbitration weekly highlights—17 April 2025

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: coverage of arbitration-related decisions from England, France, the USA, Australia and the PCA; updates from UNCTAD, VIAC, SCC Arbitration Institute, SCIA, DIAC, updated guidance from the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary on the use of AI and other AI related developments. All this, and more, in our weekly highlights.

UNCTAD announces updated Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator with 1,401 cases

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has enhanced its Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator, with the addition of 1,401 investor–State dispute settlement (ISDS) cases under investment treaties, as of 31 December 2024. The update incorporates new cases, arbitral decisions, and arbitrator appointments sourced from public and specialised reports. In 2024, at least 58 new ISDS cases were initiated, with 135 countries and the European Union having been respondents in such claims. An analysis of ISDS trends will feature in the upcoming World Investment Report 2025.

Arbitration Clauses and Third Parties: Limits of Protection (Renaissance Securities v ILLC Chlodwig Enterprises)

Arbitration analysis: In this decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal seeking an anti-suit injunction (‘ASI’) restraining Russian proceedings brought against affiliates of the appellant. Although the relevant agreements on which part of the dispute was founded contained London-seated LCIA arbitration clauses governed by English law, the court held that these agreements to arbitrate did not extend to third-party affiliates. The court also rejected the argument that the arbitration clauses implied a negative obligation not to litigate related claims elsewhere. Further, while recognising the Russian proceedings may be vexatious and/or designed to circumvent arbitration clauses and applicable sanctions, the court declined to grant an ASI on discretionary grounds: it found that the appellant failed to provide full and frank disclosure of its corporate relationship with the affiliates following their sale. This lack of transparency undermined the request for relief. This decision underscores that English courts will not extend the scope of an agreement to arbitrate to affiliates without clear contractual language and will carefully scrutinise parties seeking equitable relief where material facts are withheld. The decision also reaffirms the English court’s willingness to intervene in foreign proceedings where necessary to protect arbitration, but only where that intervention can be properly justified. Written by Oliver Browne, partner at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.