Need for “fair, commercial, commonsense reading” of awards in International Shipping News,Shipping Law News 25/04/2026 The case of Eagle Bulk Pte Ltd (now Star Bulk (Singapore) Pte Ltd) -v- Traxys North America LLC (MV Canary) [2026] EWHC 518 (Comm) highlights that challenges under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (1996 Act) to arbitration awards, on the ground of serious irregularity leading to substantial injustice, will only succeed in those relatively rare cases where the tribunal has gone so wrong in its conduct of the arbitration that the Court feels bound to intervene. In this case, the defendant charterers chartered the vessel from the claimant owners for a voyage to carry a cargo of petcoke cinder from India to New Orleans, USA. On arrival at New Orleans, the vessel’s holds and cargo were found to be flooded with a substantial quantity of water. Discharge of the cargo was disrupted, and a dispute arose between the parties which related, at least in large part, to which of them bore contractual responsibility for delays and extra expenses caused by the presence of water in the vessel’s holds. The owners argued that all the water was loaded with the cargo, claiming, among other things, demurrage of about $544,350.81. The charterers argued that, at the time of loading, the cargo did not have an excessive moisture content. As such, they contended that water entered the vessel’s holds as a result of leaking valves on the vessel, and that the delayed unloading of the cargo was the owners’ responsibility. Charterers also brought a shortage claim that was based on the difference in weight between the cargo recorded as loaded and that recorded by the truck weighbridge scales after discharge. The owners applied under s.57 of the 1996 Act for clarification and/or correction of the award. The Tribunal found no clarification or correction was required. The arbitration proceedings In their award, the Tribunal found that: · The effective cause of the delays was the ingress of water via leaking and defective valves in the vessel’s bilge system. In particular, the Tribunal found that there had been ingress into Hold 4. · The owners were liable for the cargo shortage claim. The owners applied under s.57 of the 1996 Act for clarification and/or correction of the award. The Tribunal found no clarification or correction was required. The owners then applied to the Court under s. 68 of the 1996 Act, seeking to challenge the award on the ground of serious irregularity leading to substantial injustice. They argued that: · The Tribunal breached its duty under s.33 of the 1996 Act to act fairly and impartially between the parties and to ensure that each party has a reasonable opportunity to present its case and to deal with its opponent’s case. The owners alleged that the Tribunal had decided the case on a point not argued by either party, contrary to their common ground and without giving the parties the opportunity to deal with it. · The Tribunal failed to address key issues that were put to it. To substantiate such a challenge, it is necessary to show that (i) there was an issue, (ii) it was put to the Tribunal, (iii) the Tribunal failed to deal with it and (iv) this caused a substantial injustice. The Commercial Court dismissed the owners’ challenges. General duty under s.33 of the 1996 Act The owners argued that the Tribunal had to be satisfied that the water ingress resulted from leaks through defective valves at each of five stages of the bilge s