In the recent case of Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping & Trading Pte Singapore and Another – Court of Appeal (Gross and Flaux LJJ) [2017] EWCA Civ 1703 – 2 November 2017, a clarification was provided by Court of Appeal in relation to a dispute as to the service of Notice of Arbitration.
On 9 April 2013, a contract of affreightment (COA) was concluded between the first defendant (Dana), as owner, and the claimant (Sino) as charterer. Sino had played no part in the negotiation and performance of the COA, and it was anticipated that a different company, Beijing XCty Trading Ltd (BX) would handle the day-to-day operation of the COA. Disputes arose under the COA, and on 4 February 2014 Dana appointed an arbitrator and emailed notice of arbitration to a Mr Daniel Cai, an employee of BX, calling upon Sino to appoint its arbitrator.
See attached file: ALCO20170017 Notice of Arbitration – Difficult to hide !.pdf
仲裁通知书 – 难以隐藏
在最近的Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping & Trading Pte Singapore and Another – Court of Appeal (Gross and Flaux LJJ) [2017] EWCA Civ 1703 – 2 November 2017一案中，上诉法院澄清了有关仲裁通知书送达的争议。
2013年4月9日，第一被告（船东Dana公司）与原告（承租人Sino公司）签订包运合同。Sino并未参与合同的商榷及履行，而是由另一家公司Beijing XCty Trading Ltd (BX公司)来完成包运合同的日常履行。产生包运合同下的争议，于2014年2月4日，Dana公司指定仲裁员，并以电子邮件方式将仲裁通知发送给BX公司的职员蔡先生(Daniel Cai)，要求Sino公司指定其仲裁员。
详细信息请参阅附件。
