Court of Cassation, No. 14-22.643

Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, 4 November 2015, No. 14-22.643

COOL CARRIERS AB

Vs.

SIAT

BELMARINE

BDM

AVERO

LLOYD’S

VERHEYEN

NATEUS

HELVETIA

FORTIS

On the single ground, annexed hereafter:

Whereas, according to the judgment under appeal (Paris,8 April 2014), that the company Nykcool, incorporated under Swedish law, concluded a voyage travel charter contract with several fruit importers stipulating an arbitration clause; whereas a dispute has arisen between the parties as a result of the damage suffered by the goods carried on the Southern Harvest vessel, the importers' insurers have initiated an arbitration procedure against the company Nykcool before the maritime arbitration Chamber of Paris (in French Chambre Arbitrale Maritime de Paris); that the arbitral tribunal, constituted with the assistance of the supporting judge, issued an award ordering the payment of various sums to the company Nykcool, to which the company Cool Carriers has the rights;

Whereas the company Cool Carriers objects to the judgment under appeal which rejected the appeal for annulment of the award between the parties and the claim for damages;

Whereas, in the first place, after noting that “request for disqualification of the arbitrators was rejected by the Juge d’appui and that the Nykcool company could only base its request for annulment of the arbitration award on new elements which could not be brought to the attention of the latter, the Court of Appeal exactly deduced that the ground for annulment based on the irregularity of the composition of the arbitral tribunal should be dismissed;

Whereas, secondly, the Court of Appeal considered with discretion that the other facts were not established;

Whereas, thirdly, that Court of Appeal held that the dispute between the company Nykcool and the Paris Maritime Arbitral Chamber on the occasion of another procedure had no effect on the arbitration clause inserted in the charter party. By this decision the Court of Appeal has, for this sole reason, legally justified its solution;

Whereas, lastly, the judgment does not mention any reason which was not in the debate;

From which it follows that the means cannot be accepted;

FOR THESE REASONS:

DISMISSES the appeal;

Orders the company Cool Carriers AB to pay the costs;

Regarding Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, rejects her request and orders her to pay to the companies Helvetia Llyod’s, SIAT, Belmarine, BDM, Avero, Nateus, Fortis and Verheyen,

Thus done and judged by the Court of Cassation, first civil chamber, and pronounced by the president in his public hearing on four November two thousand and fifteen.