Judgment of 21 May 1976
Venice Court of Appeals
III Y.B. Comm. Arb. 277 (1978)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
In 1972, Pando (plaintiff), a Panamanian company, entered a charter-party contract with Filmo (defendant), an Italian company. The charter-party contract contained an arbitration clause, which provided that the parties would refer any dispute to an arbitral tribunal seated in London. The arbitral clause further provided that each party would appoint one arbitrator and that the two appointed arbitrators would select a third arbitrator. The arbitration clause also provided the decision of any two arbitrators was a final decision of the tribunal and became a rule of court. In 1973, Filmo defaulted on its payments required under the charter-party contract, and Pando responded by referring the matter to arbitration. Pando informed Filmo that it had appointed an arbitrator and requested Filmo appoint its own arbitrator. Filmo refused to appoint an arbitrator. In response, Pando appointed its arbitrator as the sole arbitrator for the tribunal, citing § 7 of the English Arbitration Act 1950 as justification for appointing a sole arbitrator. The sole arbitrator entered an arbitral award in favor of Pando. Pando then sought enforcement of the arbitral award in Italy under the New York Convention. Filmo opposed the enforcement of the arbitral award, arguing the contract provided for the appointment of two arbitrators with each party appointing an arbitrator. Filmo further asserted the appointment of a sole arbitrator violated Article V(1)(d) of the New York Convention and the English Arbitration Act. Filmo also argued that the appointment of a sole arbitrator violated Italian public policy as the sole arbitrator was not impartial.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.