Journal Article - LMAA | London Maritime Arbitrators Association

London Maritime Arbitration 

by 

Bruce Harris 

Reprinted from 

(2011) 77 Arbitration 116-124 

Sweet & Maxwell 

100 Avenue Road 

Swiss Cottage 

London 

NW3 3PF 

(Law Publishers)

Addresses 

London Maritime Arbitration 1 

Bruce Harris 

London; Maritime arbitration 

1. Introduction 

I want to speak today about how London maritime arbitration works and why it works—in 

other words, why it is presently so apparently successful. 

A question often asked is “Why do so many parties choose London as the centre for 

their arbitration in maritime contracts” To my mind, this is not the question that should 

first be asked, partly because it makes an assumption. That assumption is that parties 

consciously make a choice when it comes to fixing a venue for arbitration. My own belief 

(and this is confirmed by those whose job it is to negotiate contracts, whether they be single 

voyage charterparties fixed at very short notice by a series of email exchanges, or substantial 

shipbuilding contracts) is that the arbitration clause is one of the last things, if not the last 

thing, to be considered, and it usually gets very little time. I think the better question to ask 

is “Why is London presently the dominant maritime arbitration centre” 

To attempt to answer that involves looking at the history of London and its arbitration 

work, surrounding circumstances generally, the people involved (now and in the past) and 

how the system works. I will take each of these areas in turn, but—as will be 

understood—there is quite a lot of overlap between them. 

2. History 

The first thing to say about history is that, in the expression we use in English, “history 

repeats itself”. The reason I mention that is because it reflects a great truth, namely that 

everything seems to go in cycles. We see this particularly in the fact that there seems to be 

a constant rise and fall in the fortunes of individuals, groups, nations and empires. 

Consequently, what is valid today may not be true tomorrow. The British Empire, for 

example, grew to be most powerful perhaps 200 or so years ago and remained a dominant 

world force until after the end of World War II. Then, within the space of about 20 years, 

it dwindled to virtual insignificance. Going further back in history, the same can be seen 

to be true of other empires: for example, the Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire. In 

those cases too, whilst the rise to ascendancy was relatively gradual, the descent was rapid. 

I mention this not in any attempt to teach history, about which I know very little indeed, 

but because it suggests to me that whilst London may currently be in the ascendant as a 

maritime centre, that is a situation that may well not last. I have no idea when what I think 

will be its eventual decline will occur, but I am pretty sure that it will happen. That may 

1 An address to an International Maritime Arbitration Seminar organised by the Shanghai Sub-Commission of the 

China Maritime Arbitration Commission in Shanghai, June 23, 2010. 

116 

(2011) 77 Arbitration, Issue 1 © 2011 Chartered Institute of Arbitrators


give some comfort to those around the world who would like to have a larger slice of the 

maritime arbitration cake, and perhaps would even like to establish their own city as a 

primary venue for shipping arbitrations. Having said that, let me go back to my main theme. 

For centuries, England (or perhaps I should say the British Isles, which make up the 

United Kingdom, or Great Britain) was a major maritime nation. That was probably partly 

the effect of its being an island state, and perhaps partly a consequence of being so close 

to the continent of Europe, and having to protect itself against invaders, again over the 

course of centuries. There must, however, be other reasons, but this is not the place to 

investigate them. What is important is the fact that we have a long tradition of shipping, 

both military and commercial. Further, for centuries we were at the heart of an empire—not 

only a political empire but also a commercial, trading one. 

London, of course, became the heart of that empire, being the capital of the United 

Kingdom and—as the British Empire developed and grew—was at the heart of that too. In 

the City of London, which has long been the financial and business hub of that capital, 

coffee houses, which 300 years or so ago were the places where businessmen met to transact 

their dealings, became the focus of specific markets. For example, one became what is now 

the world’s major insurance market, Lloyd’s. Another became the Baltic Exchange. 

Now the Baltic Exchange is crucial in any story about the development of London 

maritime arbitration. It rapidly became the world’s central market for the fixing of ships 

on charter. I recall in the 1960s and 1970s going to the floor of the Exchange where, on 

some days and at certain times, there would be hundreds of shipbrokers advertising the 

ships they were offering or the cargos they had for which they were seeking ships, and 

negotiating possible charters. That, of course, was before the modern age of information 

technology: nowadays so much is dealt with on computers via the internet and email, as 

well as on the telephone. The magnificent building which housed the Baltic Exchange from 

the end of the 19th century onwards was effectively destroyed by an Irish terrorist bomb 

at the beginning of the 1990s. The Exchange has never since regained its standing, but the 

truth is that it was already substantially in decline before the building was hit, largely because 

of the advent of IT. 

Most charterparty fixtures in the world were, at least until late in the 20th century, fixed 

on the Baltic Exchange. Inevitably, therefore, London had the most experienced and busiest 

shipbrokers at its heart. It is also worth noting that the motto of the Exchange is “Our Word, 

Our Bond”. Put another way, integrity of dealings has always been at the heart of shipbroking 

in London. 

Now the story goes that if two parties to a fixture fell into dispute, in the old days (i.e. 

perhaps, until the 1950s) it was normal for the brokers representing those parties to try to 

reach an agreed recommendation to put to their principals. If they could not do that then—so 

the story goes—they would ask a senior broker for his opinion. That opinion they would 

then put to their principals as a joint recommendation. It is said that this is what gave rise 

to Baltic Exchange maritime arbitration. Whether or not this is true (and it is undoubtedly 

somewhat romantic, particularly when the suggestion is made—as it often is—that the 

discussion with the third experienced broker would take place at the bar, over a gin and 

tonic or two) it is certainly the case that the Exchange maintained a list of brokers who were 

willing to act as arbitrator, and this list was displayed on the notice board on the floor of 

the Exchange. 

If a dispute arose then, following the wording in most charterparty arbitration clauses, 

each of the parties would appoint an arbitrator, probably from the Baltic list. Those arbitrators 

would then seek to agree, but if they could not (and this was quite common) they would 

appoint a third person usually as “umpire”. In English law, an umpire becomes the sole 

arbitrator once the party-appointed arbitrators have disagreed, and he alone makes the 

decision. This left the party-appointed arbitrators free to advocate their appointers’ cases 

in front of the umpire, which they would often do. 


118 Arbitration 

Nowadays, the concept of the arbitrator-advocate seems a strange one to us. That is 

partly because, due to some changes in shipping practices and in English arbitration law, 

the umpire is nowadays almost unknown, having been replaced by a third arbitrator who 

acts in conjunction with the other two arbitrators. It is also partly because the recent and 

present generations of arbitrators, unlike some of their predecessors, do not seek to take 

any position in relation to the disputes on which they have to adjudicate other than that 

which seems to them to be correct on their understanding of the evidence and the law. 

In 1960, arbitrators whose names were on the Baltic list decided to form themselves into 

an association—the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA). Some of you will 

know that the Association has just celebrated its 50th anniversary with a very successful 

one-day conference and a dinner attended by more than 675 people in the heart of the City 

of London. I shall talk more about the LMAA shortly. 

Another consequence of the fact that Britain was at the heart of commerce and maritime 

activity was the creation, hundreds of years ago, of a specialist Admiralty Court to deal 

with shipping matters. In those days the problems with which the court was faced were 

predominantly to do with matters such as collisions, salvage, cargo damage, crew’s rights, 

bottomry bonds, general average and the like, but commercial contractual disputes also 

turned up from time to time. 

Towards the end of the 19th century, it became apparent that a great deal of commercial 

(and particularly shipping) work was coming to the English courts and that it required 

specialist attention. Indeed, in one case, the Court of Appeal was extremely rude about one 

judge who did not have the relevant experience, and who made a complete mess of a 

commercial dispute he had to decide. Accordingly, a specialist Commercial Court was set 

up. That marked something of a turning point for the development of English commercial 

law, since it seems to have attracted to London a large number of litigants from overseas. 

Nowadays the court has available 16 specialist judges, of whom at any one time about half 

will be sitting hearing commercial disputes. It is perhaps necessary here to explain that 

English judges are not trained as professional judges, but rather come from the ranks of the 

Bar where they have worked as advocates, usually for 25 years or more. Those who sit as 

commercial judges will have had very considerable experience at the Commercial Bar. The 

English Commercial Court now enjoys a reputation which I believe to be second to none 

in the commercial world at large. 

One more matter of history (although I do not pretend to have covered every single 

element): after the end of World War II there was a huge expansion of international trade 

which, inevitably, meant a huge expansion in maritime activity around the world. At that 

time, because of the importance of Lloyd’s, the Baltic Exchange, the P&I Clubs that had 

developed in the United Kingdom, the commodity trade associations which had established 

themselves in London and similar factors, London’s position at the centre of this trading 

world was immeasurably strengthened. 

3. Circumstances 

I have already indicated that there is inevitably an overlap between the various headings 

that I have identified, and this is where the first obvious example occurs. The circumstances 

that presently prevail and in which London finds itself as the premier centre for maritime 

arbitration in the world, are of course derived from the matters of history to which I have 

referred. And because history is a continuum, those considerations still apply, although 

sometimes with a different force from that which they previously had. 

As it seems to me, the reasons why London is now the predominant centre of maritime 

arbitration are (leaving on one side the fact that I believe London is chosen almost 

automatically in many instances when contracts are being negotiated, without much thought 



being given to any alternatives) that it still has a huge maritime community, that English 

law and lawyers are—in the field of shipping at least—second to none, and that the integrity 

of its processes and practitioners is—quite rightly—seen to be beyond question. 

4. People 

As in any field of human endeavour, people, and their experience, skills and knowledge, 

are crucial. I have already, in effect, indicated in general terms some of the significance of 

the London maritime community (or perhaps I should say communities, given the different 

professions involved). Let me now focus in particular on two categories of people who are, 

in my opinion, of the greatest importance in the context in which I speak, namely lawyers 

and judges on the one hand and arbitrators on the other. I have already explained that our 

judges are experienced practising lawyers before they become judges and, in the case of 

commercial—and more particularly shipping—matters, they will invariably have had 

considerable experience as practising lawyers in dealing with cases within this speciality. 

Not only will they have had that experience, but they will have been trained by other senior 

lawyers who, before them, had such experience themselves. 

When nowadays I encounter some quite senior advocates arguing cases in front of me, 

I can see (because I know their histories) an unbroken line stretching back five or six 

generations to other advocates who were doing the same kind of work and whom I knew 

when I first came into this area of activity over 45 years ago. (Many of those I first knew 

went on to become judges. Some of them went on to the Court of Appeal and the House of 

Lords, and have now retired!) Obviously, those I first knew 45 years or more ago had 

themselves been trained by others who in turn came from similar long, unbroken lines of 

shipping and commercial legal experience. The value of this cannot be over-estimated. It 

means that the handling of cases by the lawyers involved is first-class. It also means that 

the judges who have to decide any such cases are of the highest standard. 

I have mentioned advocates, but of course in our system we have a divided profession 

of advocates (barristers) on the one hand, and solicitors—who prepare cases but do not, 

generally, advocate them—on the other. What I have said about barristers is equally true 

for solicitors. 

The question may arise as to what, in the context of arbitration, is the importance of 

judges. I shall address that a little later when I talk about processes in London maritime 

arbitration, but at this stage let me just say that it is, in my view, one of the great features 

of London’s attractiveness. 

At this stage, though, I am dealing with people, not processes. Having mentioned judges 

and lawyers, let me talk a little about arbitrators. In the 1940s and 1950s, as I understand 

it, most of those who practised as maritime arbitrators were concurrently shipping brokers 

who worked on the floor of the Baltic Exchange. I myself remember hearing names such 

as Browne, Bunker and Conybear; none of whom I knew. In the 1960s there were still many 

brokers and commercial people working as arbitrators, but now they began to be joined 

first by one Richard Clyde, a solicitor who had just retired, and later by people such as 

Cedric Barclay, who was principally an engineer and shipowner, and Donald Davies, who 

had been a mariner and had then qualified as a lawyer. By this time the amount of arbitration 

work—no doubt due to the huge expansion in trade I have already mentioned—had increased 

substantially and the types of case became more varied. I suspect this is one reason why a 

different type of person began to be involved as arbitrator. 

In those days there was not a great deal of immediate involvement of lawyers in London 

maritime arbitration. Many cases were dealt with on a very low-key basis. Submissions to 

arbitrators would commonly be made by brokers on behalf of their principals, or other 

non-legal representatives. Lawyers might have been consulted, but any involvement they 



had was often in the background. The parties’ lay representatives communicated directly 

with the arbitrators by letter. By and large, everything was relatively simple, quick and very 

cheap. 

Towards the end of the 1960s, however, lawyers began to be involved more and more. 

There were various reasons for this. One was that cases were becoming more complicated 

generally. Another was that brokers and agents began to focus more on concluding contracts, 

and less on dealing with the disputes that arose afterwards. In addition, P&I Clubs which, 

until then, had often handled arbitration submissions for their members, began to employ 

outside lawyers more frequently. An inevitable consequence of the involvement of lawyers 

was increased procedural complexity. In the first place, lawyers are accustomed to court 

procedures and so the informality of arbitration was unfamiliar to them and, as they saw it, 

largely undesirable. They attempted to impose the procedures with which they were familiar 

from the courts upon commercial arbitration. Lawyers are also naturally cautious and do 

not want to risk being criticised for not having done something it might be thought they 

should have done. This, too, means that they tend to indulge in procedural arguments which 

might otherwise not have occurred. 

Thus the practice of maritime arbitration itself became more complex and, in time, the 

nature of those who became appointed as arbitrators changed. More and more people, such 

as myself, who had some legal experience (and, in other cases, legal qualifications as well) 

started to be appointed. Not only was this thought to be desirable in order to deal with the 

increasing procedural complexities, but I believe that the parties’ lawyers—who have a 

considerable say in choosing arbitrators—generally felt, and feel, more comfortable with 

a tribunal made up of arbitrators who have some legal knowledge and who, thus, are 

perceived as being more likely to reach a result that is correct in law rather than what might 

be called a “purely commercial” outcome (which lawyers often see as being “arbitrary”). 

And so it is that many of today’s maritime arbitrators in London have, to a greater or 

lesser extent, legal backgrounds and often legal qualifications. Two of our recent past 

Presidents were once themselves practising solicitors, and four of them have at some stage 

worked with P&I Clubs (which are quasi-legal for these purposes) and are legally qualified. 

On the other hand, it has to be said that a very substantial number of our arbitrators continue 

to come from the purely commercial or practical world, and that is all to the good. 

5. Integrity 

In any judicial system, whether it be public or private, integrity is obviously of the highest 

importance. London maritime arbitrators have an excellent—and I consider wholly 

deserved—reputation in this regard. 

One of the ways in which integrity is ensured is found in the fact that all arbitration in 

England is subject—but only where necessary—to court supervision. I emphasise “only 

where necessary” because, as a matter of policy, English law regards arbitration as being 

a private, consensual process, and considers that the courts should only intervene in order 

to support it and to make sure that nothing goes wrong. The courts are not there to substitute 

their own views or decisions for those of arbitrators, save in very rare circumstances. 

Our courts may intervene in three main areas. One is in connection with the question 

whether an arbitration tribunal in fact has jurisdiction or not. Conceptually, English law 

holds that this is a decision that cannot finally be made by the tribunal whose jurisdiction 

has been challenged. Having said that, however, our Arbitration Act does allow arbitrators 

to make decisions on their own jurisdiction, and those will be final and binding unless 

challenged in the courts within a relatively short space of time after a decision is made. 

A second area of challenge arises if there is a “serious irregularity” in the conduct of the 

arbitration proceedings. I will not go into details here as to what amounts to a “serious 

irregularity”. Let me just say that the emphasis is, rightly, on “serious”, and that our Act 

contains a list of categories of such irregularity. That list not only emphasises the seriousness 



required, but it is also a “closed” list which cannot, therefore, be added to by the judges. 

The underlying principle is that, the parties having chosen their tribunal, they should live 

with how it works and what it decides, unless things go very seriously wrong. 

The third way in which the court may intervene in an arbitration—although it very rarely 

does so—is to correct a mistake of law committed by an arbitration tribunal. Again, I will 

not go into details: it is enough to say that in order to have an award reviewed on a question 

of law, the court has first to give permission. In order to give permission, it must effectively 

be persuaded, on a quick perusal of the award, that there is a very strong case for thinking 

that the arbitrators have made a mistake. If that is not so, then permission to appeal will not 

be given. Even when permission is granted, and this happens in very few cases indeed, 

there is no guarantee that when the court hears the appeal it will decide that the award was 

wrong. Nonetheless, whilst the court will be persuaded to intervene—whether on a question 

of jurisdiction, irregularity or law—in very few cases, the fact that it has the power to do 

so when necessary helps to ensure that the process of arbitration as conducted by arbitrators 

maintains its integrity. 

In any event, the arbitrators themselves deal with the matters that come to them with 

complete impartiality. As a result, probably 90 per cent of the awards we make are 

unanimous. This may be contrasted with other arbitration forums where dissents are very 

common and, strikingly, the dissent is always in favour of the party that appointed the 

arbitrator who dissents. 

I have also had the experience in one case of an arbitrator from another country (i.e. not 

the United Kingdom) telling me, quite frankly, that he “could not” agree with me and our 

chairman, not because he did not think that I was right, but because to agree with me would 

threaten at least his professional standing, and possibly even his liberty, in his home country. 

That is not something that happens with London arbitrators. I have also heard it said in one 

major shipping centre of the world, which itself is anxious to become a centre of maritime 

arbitration, that none of the parties based in that centre would arbitrate there because they 

could not trust the arbitrators, their own nationals! 

As an illustration of how indifferent London arbitrators can be to the question of who 

appointed them, I remember one arbitration that I chaired where, after a hearing with much 

evidence and argument, the party-appointed arbitrators discussed the matter and disagreed 

quite strongly with one another. At one point I laughed, because I suddenly realised that 

their points of view were diametrically opposed to the points of view of the parties that had, 

respectively, appointed them. Thus the arbitrator appointed by party A was adopting the 

position of party B, and vice versa. 

6. How London Maritime Arbitration Works 

London maritime arbitration is often equated with the LMAA. This is understandable 

because in many respects the LMAA is the public face of London maritime arbitration, but 

in fact there is an important point to be understood which relates to the difference between 

the LMAA and the way arbitrations are organised in many other places. The LMAA is not 

an administering body or an appointing authority (although in a very small number of cases 

it will make appointments, or nominate arbitrators or mediators). So it is quite unlike CMAC 

or other administering arbitration bodies, such as the ICC. As its name tells us, the LMAA 

is purely an association of London maritime arbitrators. It does publish Terms to govern 

the conduct of arbitrations which are being run by its members, but it does not administer 

the arbitrations in any way. The administration of arbitrations is done by the individual 

tribunals involved. Whilst they normally apply the Terms, it is up to them whether they 

want to apply them in every single respect or whether they want to be flexible and vary 

them according to the case. 



I cannot over-emphasise the importance of this difference. Indeed, the fact that London 

maritime arbitrations are not administered may be one of the reasons why London is found 

to be attractive. Certainly, the IMAO, an organisation set up some years ago between the 

ICC and the CMI to provide an international court of maritime arbitration, has been a 

singular failure. It is plain that shipping parties do not want administered arbitration. I can 

understand why, because it tends to be slow, expensive and burdened with unnecessary 

bureaucracy. 

So how does it work The first thing to consider is the question “How does an arbitration 

get started” In most cases, where the arbitration clause provides for each party to make an 

appointment, the arbitration starts when one party appoints its arbitrator and gives notice 

of that appointment to the other party. (It is important to note here that an appointment is 

only valid and complete when the arbitrator in question has agreed to accept appointment, 

and when notice of that appointment has been given.) In other cases, where the arbitration 

agreement provides for a sole arbitrator, the arbitration will be considered to have started 

when one party calls upon the other to agree upon a sole arbitrator. But the more normal 

clause provides for each party to make an appointment, and the tribunal is then complete 

when the second party appoints its arbitrator. If it does not do so within a specified time, 

then there are provisions in English law (and sometimes in the arbitration clause) allowing 

the first party to appoint its arbitrator as sole arbitrator, and that arbitrator alone thereafter 

acts and makes the decision. 

Once arbitration has been started, the policy we adopt is that each party’s cards should 

be put squarely “on the table”. In other words, the parties are not allowed to “play poker”, 

to hide things from one another or to surprise one another late in the proceedings. Thus the 

claimant starts things moving by serving claim submissions together with supporting 

documents. Those submissions have to explain what the claim is about and why the claimant 

says it is entitled to succeed, on the facts, and on the law if relevant. They should be relatively 

full and not, as in the past, short, formal pleadings. The respondent then replies with its 

defence submissions. These again should be full, and should clearly and fully state what 

the respondent’s case is, and should be supported by relevant documents from its side. 

After that, it is common for the claimant to put in reply submissions, perhaps with some 

more documents, but hopefully not. If at that stage there is any question that the parties 

may still have further documents that are relevant that should be disclosed, there is a 

procedure for disclosure. At this point it is normal to look at the case to see whether it is 

one that requires an oral hearing, at which lawyers will argue and witnesses will probably 

give evidence, or whether it can be dealt with on documents alone. 

Parties do not have an automatic right to have an oral hearing. The question whether 

there is to be one or not is decided by the arbitrators alone. The kind of factors that influence 

us in deciding whether to hold an oral hearing are, for example, whether there are issues of 

credibility (who said what to whom and when, for instance), issues of technical complexity 

where expert evidence needs to be carefully explained and examined, and some questions 

of legal difficulty, where a debate between arbitrators and the lawyers is useful. 

However, oral hearings are expensive, because a number of people have to be gathered 

together for some—sometimes long—periods, and they are often not objectively justified, 

particularly when regard is had to the amount involved in the dispute. Since under the 

Arbitration Act 1996 arbitrators were given the power to decide whether to hold an oral 

hearing or not, my estimate is that in 80 per cent of our cases matters are dealt with on 

written submissions and documents only. My experience is that this is far quicker and 

cheaper than holding an oral hearing in most instances. 

If there is to be an oral hearing then there will normally be an exchange of witness 

statements and of any experts’ reports in advance of the hearing. If there is expert evidence 

the arbitrators will normally require that the experts meet to discuss the matter “without 

prejudice”, with a view to agreeing on as much as possible so that the scope of dispute on 

expert evidence is reduced. Experts are required in England to be objective and to express 



their honest opinion to tribunals, so if they are truly expert and are respecting those 

obligations there should be every possibility of a substantial measure of agreement being 

reached in many cases, and indeed this is what happens. Again, if there is to be an oral 

hearing, the lawyers will be required to exchange skeleton arguments outlining the main 

points they are going to be making, so that when the hearing starts everyone—lawyers and 

arbitrators alike—know what the scope of the hearing is going to be. And again, this is an 

aspect of the policy of “no surprises”. 

If, however, the case is to be dealt with on documents only, the parties will normally be 

given an opportunity to make final written submissions before the arbitrators proceed. In 

such a case, once the submissions are closed the norm is for one of the arbitrators to read 

the whole file and form his opinion. He may then put that into the shape of some draft 

reasons for an award, or he may simply communicate his opinion to his opposite number. 

His colleague will then similarly read the file and his co-arbitrator’s draft or opinion, and 

the two will see if they can agree with one another. As I have indicated, in most cases this 

is what happens. In the rare case where, after exchanging views, they cannot agree, they 

will appoint a third arbitrator and usually simply send him the file, including their exchange 

of views. He will then express his opinion, and it quite often happens after that stage that 

one of the arbitrators changes his mind so that there is ultimately a unanimous decision. 

If there is an oral hearing, a third arbitrator (or—very rarely—an umpire) will be 

appointed before the hearing starts and will sit with the party-appointed arbitrators to hear 

the evidence and the argument. At the end of the hearing the arbitrators will then discuss 

the matter together to see if they can reach agreement, and one of them will be deputed to 

do a first draft of some reasons for an award, which will then be circulated amongst his 

colleagues, who will make suggestions, and, finally, a form of reasoned award will be agreed 

upon. 

7. Remuneration 

How are arbitrators paid for the work they do Again, and largely because London maritime 

arbitration is not administered, neither the LMAA nor any other body sets fees for London 

maritime arbitrators. On the other hand, each normally charges at very much the same rates 

as the others, so their fees tend to be consistent with one another’s. 

Complaints are occasionally heard about the cost of London maritime arbitration. The 

truth is, generally, that these complaints are not about the cost of the arbitrators themselves, 

but rather about the cost of lawyers and any experts involved, which can be very high indeed. 

In most cases arbitrators’ fees make up a quite small proportion of the total costs of any 

one arbitration. 

Speaking personally, though I think my colleagues would agree with me, I find the idea 

of a fee scale which depends upon the amount in dispute, or (worse still) the amount awarded, 

quite unattractive. It is apparent that some cases involving large sums of money do not 

require much work, and that other cases that are not very substantial in financial terms 

demand a great deal of time and effort. In either case, if an arbitrator is remunerated on a 

scale which depends upon the sum in dispute, he will be inappropriately remunerated: either 

overpaid or underpaid. And I believe that most parties see matters in the same way. They 

are also anxious to avoid having to pay heavy administration fees to an administering body, 

such as occurs with the ICC. 

8. Conclusion 

I have spoken rather more about why London maritime arbitration seems to be where it is, 

i.e. why it works, than I have spoken about how it works. Much of the practical detail is 

perhaps best left to be dealt with in questions and answers, which will follow. But to sum 

up, I think London is where it is today—handling perhaps 75 per cent or more of the world’s 



maritime arbitration work—because of historical considerations; present circumstances to 

which those factors have given rise; the right numbers of and types of people and the 

appropriate training, accompanied by a hugely valuable legacy in the English commercial 

law and in the education of its practitioners; integrity both in the system and in its 

practitioners; and because the systems it uses—which are typically flexible—are what those 

involved in shipping disputes want and feel comfortable with.

Journal Article - LMAA | London Maritime Arbitrators Association

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?