“GA ARB IN UK ENGLISH LAW TO BE APPLY BE” – means only arbitration on GA, not on demurrage disputes
The maritime industry loves abbreviations. This dates back to the time when charter parties were fixed by telex and every letter cost money. So, the arbitration clause in question read as follows:
“GA ARB IN UK ENGLISH LAW TO BE APPLY BE”
Very cryptic, but the insider reads this as “General Average Arbitration in UK English Law to be applicable” or and that was at the center of the dispute “General Average and Arbitration in the UK English law to apply”. The dispute decided by the Tribunal was about demurrage, not general average and a sole arbitrator under LMAA rules awarded USD 41,093.10 as demurrage plus costs and interests. The Arbitrazh Court Rostov (case no. A53-32565/25, order of 6 February 2026, confirmed the Arbitrazh Court of the Northern Caucasus Circuit on 24 April 2026) held that this clause only refers to general average, but not to demurrage claims and thus refused to recognise the award.
The Core Issue: Was There a Valid Arbitration Agreement?
The enforcement proceedings turned almost entirely on the interpretation of a single contractual phrase:
“GA ARB IN UK ENGLISH LAW TO BE APPLY BE”
The claimant argued that the provision should be understood as:
“General Average, and arbitration in the United Kingdom, English law to apply.”
According to the claimant, the charter incorporated a broad agreement to arbitrate disputes in England.
The respondent advanced a different interpretation:
“General Average arbitration in the United Kingdom; English law applies.”
Under this reading, arbitration was limited to disputes concerning general average and did not cover ordinary contractual claims such as demurrage.
The First-Instance Decision
The Arbitrazh Court of Rostov Region sided with the respondent.
The court found that:
- The wording referred specifically to general average arbitration.
- The clause did not provide for arbitration of all disputes arising under the contract.
- The charter did not identify a particular arbitral institution or tribunal for broader contractual disputes.
- The demurrage claim fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.
The court also relied on conclusions reached in earlier litigation between the same parties concerning the interpretation of the same charter wording.
As a result, the court held that the LMAA tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the demurrage dispute and refused recognition and enforcement of the award.
The Cassation Appeal
AMSTRADshipping challenged the decision before the North Caucasus Circuit Court.
The claimant argued that:
- the lower court adopted an incorrect translation of the clause;
- maritime industry practice supported a broader interpretation;
- the parties intended English arbitration to govern disputes arising from the voyage charter.
The cassation court rejected those arguments.
The court emphasized that:
- the contractual text contained neither punctuation nor wording supporting the claimant’s interpretation;
- the phrase did not expressly refer to arbitration of contractual disputes generally;
- the claimant had not sought a linguistic expert opinion despite disputing the translation;
- the wording could not reasonably be expanded beyond disputes concerning general average.
Consequently, the court upheld the refusal to enforce the award.
Public Policy and Jurisdiction
An interesting aspect of the judgment is the court’s discussion of public policy.
The court reasoned that enforcement of an award rendered by a tribunal lacking jurisdiction would conflict with fundamental procedural principles and the parties’ right to a fair hearing.
Accordingly, the absence of a valid arbitration agreement was treated not merely as a contractual defect but as a matter touching Russian public policy and procedural fairness.
While many jurisdictions would address the issue primarily as a question of arbitral jurisdiction under the New York Convention, the Russian court linked the problem to broader public-order considerations, which is a general line in Russian courts. Absence of an arbitration agreement would be sufficient to reject enforcement under the New York Convention (Art. V 1 c of the NYC), which provides as follows:
Recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to the competent authority where the recognition and enforcement is sought, proof that:
(….)
(c) The award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, that part of the award which contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration may be recognized and enforced; or
No need to recurr on public policy to justify this result.
Lessons learned
First, not all refusals to recognise a foreign arbitral award in Russia refer to the infamous “Lugovoy Law”.
Second, in times when correspondence via email is not charged by the letter, it might be time to move on from using the old fashioned abbreviations which made sense in another century and use proper language to avoid this kind of dispute.