Pan Liberty Navigation Co. et al. v. World Link (H.K.) Resources Ltd.

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Judge: Esson, Saunders and Oppal, JJ.A.
• Citation: (2005), 211 B.C.A.C. 245 (CA),2005 BCCA 206
• Date: 10 February 2005
• Subject Matter: ARBITRATION,SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION

Pan Liberty Navigation v. World Link (2005), 211 B.C.A.C. 245 (CA);

    349 W.A.C. 245

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.004

Pan Liberty Navigation Co. Ltd. and Blue Arctic Shipping Co. Ltd. (respondents/plaintiffs) v. World Link (H.K.) Resources Limited (appellant/defendant)

(CA032234; 2005 BCCA 206)

Indexed As: Pan Liberty Navigation Co. et al. v. World Link (H.K.) Resources Ltd.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Esson, Saunders and Oppal, JJ.A.

April 8, 2005.

Summary:

The defendant applied for a stay of the action on the ground that further proceedings in it should take place in England, based on a charter party arbitration provision.

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the application. The defendant appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Arbitration - Topic 2504

Stay of proceedings - Arbitration clause - Enforcement of - Charter agreements respecting two ships provided for arbitration in London, England - The charterer defaulted - The owners obtained final arbitration awards and sought to enforce them without success - The owners developed a theory that if any entity bearing the name of the charterer existed at all, that entity was a worthless shell that had been used by the defendant to obtain the benefit of the charter without paying for it - The owners sued the defendant in British Columbia - The defendant applied for a stay of the action, arguing that further proceedings should take place in England, based on the arbitration provisions in the charter agreements - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs' allegations fell squarely within the arbitration provisions because the real issue was whether the defendant was the "defaulting charterer" - The court granted a stay.

Shipping and Navigation - Topic 1888

Carriage of goods - Charterparties - Arbitration clauses - [See Arbitration - Topic 2504 ].

Cases Noticed:

Prince George (City) v. Sims (A.L.) & Sons Ltd. et al. (1995), 61 B.C.A.C. 254; 100 W.A.C. 254; 9 B.C.L.R.(3d) 368 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Boart Sweden AB v. NYA Stromnes AB (1988), 41 B.L.R. 295 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Gulf Canada Resources Ltd. v. Arochem International Ltd. et al. (1992), 11 B.C.A.C. 145; 22 W.A.C. 145; 66 B.C.L.R.(2d) 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

TMR Energy Ltd. v. State Property Fund of Ukraine (2003), 244 F.T.R. 1; 2003 FC 1517 (F.C. Protho.), dist. [para. 23].

Norsk Hydro ASA v. State Property Fund of Ukraine, [2002] EWHC 2120 (Comm.), refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

M. Sachs, for the appellant;

T.S. Hawkins and A.T. Keagan, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, B.C., on February 10, 2005, by Esson, Saunders and Oppal, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Esson, J.A., delivered the following decision for the court on April 8, 2005.