Case number: 59
Article number: model arbitration law / 11(4)(a)
Thessaurs issue:
Country of decision: United Kingdom
Year of decision: 1993
Type of decision: Judicial decision

Case 59: MAL 11(4)(a)
Hong Kong: High Court of Hong Kong (Leonard J.) 28 September 1993
China Ocean Shipping Company v. Mitrans Maritime Panama S.A.
Original in English
Unpublished

(Abstract prepared by the Secretariat)

The defendant failed to appoint an arbitrator and the plaintiff sought the appointment of an arbitrator by the court on behalf of
the defendant pursuant to article 11(4)(a) MAL. One day before the hearing the defendant indicated its willingness to consent
to the appointment of an arbitrator by the court, provided that each party would bear its share of the costs of the proceedings.
The plaintiff, who had some difficulty in getting the matter before the court because of problems concerning service of
documents, rejected the defendant's offer and asked the court to appoint an arbitrator and order that the defendant pay the
costs of the proceedings.

The court found that the defendant had failed to honour its obligation under the arbitration agreement and appoint an arbitrator
and that the defendant's conduct was such that it was proper that the plaintiff should be placed in a position in which it would
have been if the defendant had honoured its obligation. The court ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the plaintiff
occasioned by the application for the appointment of an arbitrator by the court on behalf of the defendant.