Summary

Introduction

1. This is the hearing of a claim brought in the name of the claimant by the 9th-10th defendants for a declaration under section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1996 that the arbitrator they have caused to be appointed in respect of three references by the 1st-3rd defendants to arbitration have been validly appointed.

2. In reality this is a dispute between the 9th-10th defendants on the one hand and the 4th-8th defendants on the other as to who is in ultimate control of the claimant and who, therefore, is entitled nominate an arbitrator in its name in relation to each of the references. It follows that although in form this is claim by the claimant against the 1st-3rd defendants, in fact, those defendants have not played any substantive part in the proceedings which has been fought out as a bipartite dispute as to who I should conclude controls the claimant, at any rate as things stand and who, therefore, should decide who the claimant should appoint as its arbitrator.

3. This dispute has no connection with England, other than that the Arbitration Agreements with which this application is concerned requires arbitration in London.

As will be apparent from what I say hereafter, the dispute between the 4th-8th defendants, on the one hand, and the 9th-10th defendants, on the other, has been litigated primarily in an arbitration conducted in the State of New York and in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ("Bankruptcy Court") and the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ("District Court"), exercising its supervisory jurisdiction in relation to US seated arbitrations in New York. It engages issues of US bankruptcy and arbitration law and Republic of the Marshall Islands ("RMI") and Liberian company law.

4. There is a highly contentious application pending before the District Court to set aside the final award in the New York arbitration, brought by parties ultimately controlled by the 4th-8th defendants against parties ultimately controlled by the 9th-10th defendants on the ground that the entities controlled by the 9th -10th defendants obtained that award by fraud. That issue is due to be resolved by Judge Liman in the District Court at the end of this year. I make clear that nothing I say in this judgment should be regarded as relevant to the resolution of that dispute which is exclusively a matter for Judge Liman to resolve on the evidence before him and by reference to the submissions made to him.

Indeed, it should not be necessary to refer to this judgment in those proceedings at all other than perhaps as a chronological footnote.

5. This claim has been brought in circumstances of great urgency with the trial taking place between 7th - 9th July and all parties demanding a judgment by no later than 18th July. In fact, I have been able to deliver this judgment on 14th July.

...