Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Harper Versicherungs AG v Indemnity Marine Assurance Co Ltd

Harper Versicherungs AG v Indemnity Marine Assurance Co Ltd 23 June 2006 Tomlinson J Commercial Court [2006] EWHC 1500 [2006] ArbLR 36 Arbitration proceedings--Commencement--Jurisdiction--Parties--Transfer to third party--Arbitration commenced in name of original parties rather than third party--Whether arbitration a nullity (no)--Whether mere misnomer (yes) Arbitration proceedings--Jurisdiction--Arbitrator appointed to determine amounts `currently due and owing'--Additional claims made during the arbitration--Whether arbitrator had jurisdiction over additional claims (yes) Arbitrator has jurisdiction where misnomer in name of claimants Harper and others, as reinsurers, concluded a contract of reinsurance with Indemnity Marine and London and Scottish. The reinsurers stopped underwriting and Castlewood handled claims against them. The reinsureds were managed by Resolute. Disputes arose as to whether the treaty included asbestos, pollution, and health hazard losses. A request by Castlewood for inspection of records was refused. Resolute commenced arbitration in the name of Indemnity Marine and London and Scottish unaware that the business of these two companies had been transferred to Ocean Marine under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The reinsurers denied the existence of an arbitration agreement. A sole arbitrator was appointed to deal with `all sums currently due and owing'. He issued an award upholding jurisdiction and the reinsurers accepted that there was an arbitration agreement. The http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arbitration Law Reports and Review Oxford University Press

Harper Versicherungs AG v Indemnity Marine Assurance Co Ltd

Arbitration Law Reports and Review , Volume 2006 (1) – Jan 25, 2011

Harper Versicherungs AG v Indemnity Marine Assurance Co Ltd

Arbitration Law Reports and Review , Volume 2006 (1) – Jan 25, 2011

Abstract

23 June 2006 Tomlinson J Commercial Court [2006] EWHC 1500 [2006] ArbLR 36 Arbitration proceedings--Commencement--Jurisdiction--Parties--Transfer to third party--Arbitration commenced in name of original parties rather than third party--Whether arbitration a nullity (no)--Whether mere misnomer (yes) Arbitration proceedings--Jurisdiction--Arbitrator appointed to determine amounts `currently due and owing'--Additional claims made during the arbitration--Whether arbitrator had jurisdiction over additional claims (yes) Arbitrator has jurisdiction where misnomer in name of claimants Harper and others, as reinsurers, concluded a contract of reinsurance with Indemnity Marine and London and Scottish. The reinsurers stopped underwriting and Castlewood handled claims against them. The reinsureds were managed by Resolute. Disputes arose as to whether the treaty included asbestos, pollution, and health hazard losses. A request by Castlewood for inspection of records was refused. Resolute commenced arbitration in the name of Indemnity Marine and London and Scottish unaware that the business of these two companies had been transferred to Ocean Marine under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The reinsurers denied the existence of an arbitration agreement. A sole arbitrator was appointed to deal with `all sums currently due and owing'. He issued an award upholding jurisdiction and the reinsurers accepted that there was an arbitration agreement. The

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/harper-versicherungs-ag-v-indemnity-marine-assurance-co-ltd-0PlhwX7Jc7

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Oxford University Press, 2009
Subject
Judgments
ISSN
2044-8651
eISSN
2044-9887
DOI
10.1093/alrr/2006.1.461
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

23 June 2006 Tomlinson J Commercial Court [2006] EWHC 1500 [2006] ArbLR 36 Arbitration proceedings--Commencement--Jurisdiction--Parties--Transfer to third party--Arbitration commenced in name of original parties rather than third party--Whether arbitration a nullity (no)--Whether mere misnomer (yes) Arbitration proceedings--Jurisdiction--Arbitrator appointed to determine amounts `currently due and owing'--Additional claims made during the arbitration--Whether arbitrator had jurisdiction over additional claims (yes) Arbitrator has jurisdiction where misnomer in name of claimants Harper and others, as reinsurers, concluded a contract of reinsurance with Indemnity Marine and London and Scottish. The reinsurers stopped underwriting and Castlewood handled claims against them. The reinsureds were managed by Resolute. Disputes arose as to whether the treaty included asbestos, pollution, and health hazard losses. A request by Castlewood for inspection of records was refused. Resolute commenced arbitration in the name of Indemnity Marine and London and Scottish unaware that the business of these two companies had been transferred to Ocean Marine under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The reinsurers denied the existence of an arbitration agreement. A sole arbitrator was appointed to deal with `all sums currently due and owing'. He issued an award upholding jurisdiction and the reinsurers accepted that there was an arbitration agreement. The

Journal

Arbitration Law Reports and ReviewOxford University Press

Published: Jan 25, 2011

There are no references for this article.