Letters - Is arbitration user-friendly?

Is arbitration user-friendly?

I HAVE only recently taken out a subscription to your magazine and have just read the article in Issue 2 raising the question of whether or not maritime arbitration is user-friendly.

I was the representative of charterers on the panel at the London seminar and thought that I had made it clear who I was speaking for in my short paper, which Georgina Noakes would have received.

I was therefore surprised, and I am sure that three of the major grain houses and some others who were behind the paper were equally surprised, to be dismissed as 'a lesser known charterer". Shipowners, who obtain many hundreds of fixtures a year from these companies, would share in that astonishment.

The LMAA, which was represented by only three full members, correctly pointed out at the conference that charterers and their representatives could and should nominate more people from a chartering background to act as arbitrators. Other than that, it seemed to me that they preferred the view that there was no problem.

The writer is attempting to act as the messenger between the LMAA and GAFTA as there is presently no dialogue between the two.

While I wish you every success with your new magazine I would hope that it will, in future, ensure that there is a dialogue with the grain and soft commodity trade before banishing it under the heading of 'little known charterers'.

Yours etc

Richard Faint, Charter Wise Ltd
21a High Street, Lyndhurst
Hants SO43 7BB, UK

Awards should be publicised

SIR: First of all, I commend you on an excellent magazine, which covers many of our specialist topics succinctly.

There has been much discussion recently regarding the publicising of awards: there is still a general trend in London to resist making awards public because of the notion that many parties prefer to choose London as a venue because of case confidentiality.

I am of the firm opinion that cases should be more widely publicised and I believe that this would have a number of advantages:

(i) the shipping and trading industries would be able to learn from the awards and act upon them in order to avoid similar future situations being unresolvable except by arbitration or other method of dispute resolution;

(ii) ship operators and charterers would hopefully be able to apply those lessons learned and thereby adopt even more safety-conscious procedures;

(iii) the LMAA would be more easily and favourably compared with New York and other centres, where awards are more frequently publicised;

(iv) a more structured form of precedent would thereby be set, which arbitrators may nevertheless still be at liberty to follow or reject as at present;

(v) confidentiality of the parties need not and indeed must not be jeopardised and the names of parties, vessels, ports and other relevant information could easily be replaced by letters or false names: the advantage would be that the questions of fact or law would be illustrated, irrespective of identities.

Whilst I accept and applaud that London is often chosen precisely because of its strict application of confidentiality, this would not be compromised by such anonymous publication. More awards are being published in the LMLN, which increase is to be encouraged.

The LMAA committee continues to keep this important matter under review. I understand that there is a growing swell of like-minded opinion amongst many practitioners and users. More publicising would enhance the strength of London as the centre of maritime arbitration.

Yours etc

Jeffrey Blum, 8 Ilmington Road Kenton, Harrow
Middlesex HA3 ONH, UK