North Range Shipping Ltd v Seatrans Shipping Corporation

Where an application concerning permission to appeal from an arbitration award raises important and unresolved questions, particularly concerning Convention rights and the court’s jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal may adjourn it for an inter partes hearing before determining the issue. The court may require the applicant to clarify whether further reasons were sought from the first-instance judge and whether inadequate reasons are alleged to infringe Article 6. The court expressed the provisional view that section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 prevented an appeal against refusal of permission itself, while leaving open a possible review confined to the adequacy of reasons required by Article 6.

North Range Shipping Ltd applied in the Court of Appeal in proceedings arising from an arbitration award. The application followed a refusal by Mr Justice Steel in the Queen’s Bench Division to grant permission to appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The respondent was absent and unrepresented.

The court considered that the application raised questions about Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the reasons required when permission applications are decided, the procedure for challenging allegedly inadequate reasons, and the scope of the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act 1996 and the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Court of Appeal adjourned the application to be heard on notice, with the appeal to follow if permission were granted. Costs were reserved.

1. The application raised potentially important questions concerning whether Article 6 applied to applications for permission to appeal from arbitration awards under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, and what reasons a judge was required to give.
2. The court also identified procedural questions concerning how an alleged failure to give adequate reasons should be challenged, including the possible relevance of sections 6(1), 7(1)(a) and 9(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
3. Lord Justice Clarke expressed the provisional view that, having regard to sections 69(6) and 69(8) of the Arbitration Act 1996 and the authorities referred to, the Court of Appeal could not entertain an appeal from a refusal of permission to appeal against an arbitration award. Any jurisdiction might instead be limited to reviewing whether sufficient reasons had been given to satisfy Article 6.
4. Before the inter partes hearing, the owners were to state in writing whether they had invited the judge to give further reasons or had alleged that the existing reasons infringed their Convention rights, and explain any failure to do so.
5. Lord Justice Kay agreed with Lord Justice Clarke.

• Queen’s Bench Division: Mr Justice Steel refused permission to appeal from the arbitration award under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): the application was adjourned to be heard on notice, with any appeal to follow if permission were granted. Costs were reserved.