A shipowner headquartered in Singapore entered into a contract of affreightment (COA) with an Indian company for the shipment of six annual cargoes of coal in the shipowner 's vessels.
In 2009, the shipowner went into liquidation and as a result since this year until the end of the contract the Indian company no longer mentioned the cargo shipments, as stipulated in the contract entered into between the companies.
In view of the above scenario, the shipowner incepted an arbitration proceeding in London, according to the rules set out by the COA, requesting that the Indian company's breach of contract were typified, and, as a consequence, an award of damages for the losses sustained by the shipowner.
The CoA stipulated that the Arbitral Tribunal were composed by arbitrators classified as "trade people". The Arbitral Tribunal was composed of two lawyers, who, in turn, called a third arbitrator. The arbitrators were members of the London Maritime Arbitrators Association - LMAA.
Upon judging the dispute, the Arbitral Tribunal understood that the shipowner 's arguments were grounded having adversely judged the Indian company to pay a considerable compensatory amount.
In order to enforce his right, the shipowner filed an execution action in Australia whose country the adversely judged company has sufficient assets to satisfy the debt.
It is worth emphasizing that Singapore, India, Australia and the United Kingdom adopted the International Arbitration Act of the British Community of Nations, a provision that allows to enforce an arbitration award rendered by one of these nations in another nation of referred organization.
The Indian company upon filing a motion to stay execution upheld lack of validity of the arbitration, under the allegation that the arbitrators...