Find a Barrister

Find an Arbitrator

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
people

Contact

Contact with chambers should be made through the Practice Management Team. They are happy to discuss client requirements and provide further information on such matters as the expertise and experience of individual members, fees, working practices and languages spoken. We have members able to work in French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Greek and Chinese (Mandarin).

Outside working hours, a member of our team is always available to be contacted on matters of an urgent nature. Contact should be made using the Chambers main number or email.

To contact our Singapore office, please contact our BD Director, Asia, Rachel Foxton. Out of office hours calls will automatically be diverted to our clerking team in London.

London

20 Essex Street
London
WC2R 3AL

enquiries@twentyessex.com
t: +44 20 7842 1200
DX 0009 Lond/Chan Lane

Singapore

28 Maxwell Road
#02-03
Maxwell Chambers Suites
Singapore 069120

singapore@twentyessex.com
t: +65 62257230

Contact

Contact with chambers should be made through the Practice Management Team. They are happy to discuss client requirements and provide further information on such matters as the expertise and experience of individual members, fees, working practices and languages spoken. We have members able to work in French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Greek and Chinese (Mandarin).

Outside working hours, a member of our team is always available to be contacted on matters of an urgent nature. Contact should be made using the Chambers main number or email.

To contact our Singapore office, please contact our BD Director, Asia, Rachel Foxton. Out of office hours calls will automatically be diverted to our clerking team in London.

London

20 Essex Street
London
WC2R 3AL

enquiries@twentyessex.com
t: +44 20 7842 1200
DX 0009 Lond/Chan Lane

Singapore

28 Maxwell Road
#02-03
Maxwell Chambers Suites
Singapore 069120

singapore@twentyessex.com
t: +65 62257230

24/06/2015

Libero Commodities S.A v Alexandre Augustin

This is an archived article, and some links may not work. Contact us if you have any questions.

 

This was an appeal, under s.69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, on two issues of law arising out of an award of the Technical Appeal Committee (“TAC”) of the  International Cotton Association (“ICA”). 

The underlying dispute arose out of a contract of sale pursuant to which the claimant, Libero, bought cotton from the defendant, Alexandre Augustin.  A dispute arose about the price, which the parties agreed to refer to arbitration, on terms that if arbitration was not commenced by 30 October 2012 the claimant’s price would prevail.  The defendant purported to commence arbitration on 30 October 2012 but did not pay the fee, as required under the ICA rules, and the question arose whether he had validly commenced arbitration in time.  The TAC held that payment of the fee was not a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration, and that the defendant had commenced the arbitration in time.  The TAC went on to consider the substance of the dispute, and held that the defendant’s price prevailed. 

On the appeal to the Commercial Court, two issues arose: first, whether the TAC was correct to hold that the arbitration was commenced in time notwithstanding the non-payment of the fee; and second, if so, whether the TAC was correct to hold that the defendant’s price prevailed.  The latter issue turned on whether the defendant had validly “fixed” the price pursuant to the futures market (as he was entitled to do under the contract), and raised questions as to the operation of price fixation clauses in commodities contracts.    

Sitting as a deputy judge of the Commercial Court, Christopher Butcher QC upheld the TAC’s award in relation to the first issue, applying the principle that time bar clauses should not be construed contra proferentem in the case of ambiguity: see Bunge SA v Deutsche Conti-Handels-Gesellschaft MBH (No 2) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 353.  However, the appeal was allowed in relation to the second issue, the judge holding that the defendant had failed to make a valid call, and the result was that the price was to be ‘fixed’ by the claimant.  The result was that the case was remitted to the TAC for further consideration of (a) whether the claimant had validly fixed the price, and (b) if not (such that the agreed contractual mechanism for fixing the price had broken down), what the consequences were.  

Luke Pearce appeared on behalf of the successful appellant (instructed by Holman Fenwick Willan LLP). 


Share