For London Arbitration Week, the LMAA was delighted to host an event titled “Ad hoc arbitration using LMAA Terms to resolve shipping, trade and offshore disputes – what, when and why”.

The distinguished panel consisted of Mr Justice Andrew Baker, Chris Moxon (Senior Legal Counsel at RWE Supply & Trading), Jessica Neuberger (Partner at Eversheds Sutherland, in the Construction and Engineering Group and the London Co-head of Litigation and Dispute Management), William Cecil (Partner at Haynes Boone London and Head of Dispute Resolution), Sean O’Sullivan KC (Barrister at 4 Pump Court and Arbitrator), Clare Ambrose (Twenty Essex and LMAA Full Member) and Sarra Kay (LMAA Full Member), who was Chair. We are very grateful to all those who took part.

There was a full house and a lively discussion, kicked off by Mr Justice Andrew Baker, who delivered a keynote speech, emphasising the support which the English courts give to arbitration proceedings and their willingness to uphold arbitration clauses in contracts.

Chris Moxon spoke from the viewpoint of users, whose criteria for dispute resolution include efficiency of proceedings, cost effectiveness and quality of tribunals delivering predictability of outcome. William Cecil and Clare Ambrose responded, demonstrating how the LMAA Terms can successfully deliver those requirements across the full range of maritime disputes, from carriage of goods by sea to offshore energy.

Jessica Neuberger and Sean O’Sullivan KC addressed the knotty issue of concurrency of proceedings. They concluded that the LMAA Terms are very well suited, owing to their flexibility, to all kinds of dispute, including complex offshore energy disputes, where there may be an interface of contracts involving several parties.

Perhaps the liveliest debate was reserved for a question that the panel put to the attendees as to whether they prefer arbitral tribunals to intervene proactively and “case manage” disputes, or for tribunals to be “hands off”, adopting a laissez-faire approach. Sir Andrew supported the view that tribunals would be unlikely to be criticised by the courts for being proactive, though it would always depend on the circumstances of each case. There were diverging views as to which is the better approach in the context of tribunals’ statutory duty to obtain the fair resolution of disputes without unnecessary delay and expense. Watch this space – the LMAA plans to re-visit this very important topic.

The session’s recording can be accessed on the LMAA Youtube channel: