Universal Africa Lines Ltd v. Dumar Chartering B.V.

At a glance

Parties

Universal Africa Lines Ltd (Cyprus) v. Dumar Chartering B.V. (Netherlands)

Case no.

C/10/582568 / HA ZA 19-886 (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2020:5557)

Court

Rechtbank Rotterdam (District Court of Rotterdam), Team handel en haven

Forum and rules

Dutch court proceedings; jurisdiction challenge based on London arbitration clause (Gencon 1994, box 25 and clause 19a); New York Convention Article II

Tribunal

P.A.M. van Schouwenburg-Laan (judge); pronounced by C. Bouwman (cause-list judge)

Sector

Shipping; voyage chartering

Outcome

Dumar's objection to jurisdiction based on an arbitration agreement was rejected; the court held it had jurisdiction (1 July 2020).

Amount

Costs of the incidental proceedings awarded to UAL: EUR 1,086, declared provisionally enforceable.

The dispute

Universal Africa Lines (UAL), the time charterer of a seagoing vessel, agreed in June 2019 by correspondence with Dumar Chartering on a voyage from Libreville to Dakar carrying wheat bran. UAL believed Dumar was acting as broker for Marine International in Senegal (MIS), the voyage charterer. MIS later said Dumar had presented itself to MIS as the owner, not as an intermediary. MIS refused UAL's claims for demurrage and freight, and UAL bore part of the loss under a settlement. UAL sued Dumar in Rotterdam for tort, unjust enrichment and undue payment. Dumar challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that a Gencon 1994 charter party between it and UAL provided for London arbitration.

Key holdings

1. Whether the parties agreed to arbitrate in London must be decided under the New York Convention, which prevails over the Brussels I bis Regulation (recital 12 and Article 73(2)). ¶ 4.1
2. The email recap Dumar relied on does not show a charter party between UAL as owner and Dumar as charterer. It reads as a summary of a charter between UAL and MIS, with Dumar named as the party entitled to commission. Absent a charter with UAL, UAL cannot readily be taken to have agreed to the Gencon arbitration clause, and there was no separate arbitration agreement. ¶ 4.4
3. Dumar's correspondence with MIS about the fixture is irrelevant, because nothing showed that UAL knew of it. ¶ 4.4
4. Even if emails can count as 'letters or telegrams' under Article II(2) of the New York Convention, emails sent only by Dumar, without UAL's requested confirmation, are not an exchange between the parties. They therefore do not meet the written-form requirement. ¶ 4.4
5. With no arbitration agreement, the Dutch courts have jurisdiction under Article 4(1) Brussels I bis because Dumar is domiciled in the Netherlands. The Rotterdam court has territorial jurisdiction under Article 625(1)(b) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (exploitation of a seagoing vessel), and also under Article 99. ¶ 4.6
6. Dumar's motion was dismissed. Dumar must pay EUR 1,086 in costs, provisionally enforceable, and the main case continues. ¶¶ 4.8, 5.1–5.5

Procedural history

1. 29 June 2019The vessel was loaded at Libreville and delays occurred.
2. 28 August 2019UAL issued its writ of summons against Dumar.
3. 27 May and 10 June 2020Written pleadings on the jurisdiction motion (first and second rounds).
4. 1 July 2020Judgment on the jurisdiction motion: the arbitration objection was rejected and the court held it had jurisdiction. The case was set down for 12 August 2020 for Dumar's statement of defence.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• P.A.M. van Schouwenburg-Laan Judge, Rechtbank Rotterdam
• C. Bouwman Judge, Rechtbank Rotterdam (cause-list judge (rolrechter); signed and pronounced the judgment)

For the claimant

M.M. van Leeuwen

For the respondent

M. Verhagen

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• New York Convention Article II
• written form requirement
• exchange of emails
• arbitration agreement
• Gencon 1994
• charter party
• London arbitration
• recap
• shipbroker
• voyage charter
• demurrage
• Brussels I bis Regulation
• Article 73(2) Brussels I bis
• jurisdiction objection
• Article 625 Rv
• maritime law
• Netherlands

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.