Enforceability of English arbitration agreements and a cautionary tale on safe registration in China
The decision in Beijing Jianlong Heavy Industry Group v Golden Ocean Group Ltd and others  EWHC 1063 (Comm) answered the question of whether a London arbitration agreement contained in a guarantee governed by English law would be unenforceable by reason of the guarantee itself being unenforceable as a matter of English public policy because it would involve committing an unlawful act in the guarantor’s jurisdiction (in this case, China). On appeal from an arbitration award on the question of jurisdiction, the Commercial Court agreed with the Tribunal that the arbitration agreement was not impeached or tainted even if the guarantee in which it was contained was unenforceable. Consequently, the Commercial Court held that the arbitrators had the jurisdiction to rule on the enforceability or otherwise of the underlying guarantees.
The matter involved claims pursued by various ship owners against their charterers’ guarantor in London arbitration proceedings. Five claims (which were heard together since they raised essentially the same issue) were brought in arbitration for payment under separate letters of guarantee given by Beijing Jianlong Heavy Industry Group (‘Jianlong’) to various ship-owning parties (‘the owners’) in relation to several time charterparties concluded between the owners and a subsidiary of Jianlong, Hong Xiang Shipping Holding (Hong Kong) Ltd (HXS). The owners sought payment from Jianlong under the guarantees on the basis that HXS had repudiated its obligations under the charterparties. Jianlong claimed that the guarantees were unenforceable as a matter of English public policy and that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims since both the guarantees and the London arbitration agreements incorporated in them formed part of a scheme, the object and intention of which was to contravene the laws of China…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Ince & Co briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Ince & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Ince & Co
The Court of Appeal has confirmed the meaning of the expression “in-transit loss” in a voyage charter party in the Trafigura Beheer case.
A recent Commercial Court decision considered the position when a contract provides for the law of one jurisdiction to be applicable, but for the arbitration to take place outside that jurisdiction.