Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

Union Glory v. PDVSA , First Partial Award, April 14, 2023

14 Apr 2023
Union Glory Limited v. PDVSA Petroleo S.A
First Partial Award
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
First Partial Award
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
First Partial Award
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a First Partial Award issued by a Sole Arbitrator in a London-seated arbitration governed by the Arbitration Act 1996. The proceedings were characterized by the Respondent's persistent inaction. Following the Respondent's failure to appoint an arbitrator, the Claimant's nominee was confirmed as Sole Arbitrator pursuant to Section 17(2) of the Act. Despite the Tribunal granting multiple extensions of time for the Respondent to file its Defence Submissions—accommodating the Respondent's counsel's assertions regarding the political crisis in Venezuela—the Respondent ultimately failed to comply with a final peremptory order. Consequently, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the substantive claims based on the Claimant's uncontested submissions and evidence.

Principal Legal Issues and Parties' Positions

The dispute arose from a time charterparty dated 13 July 2017 for the vessel M/T St James. The Claimant sought recovery of unpaid hire, bunker costs upon delivery, and additional war risk premiums incurred as a result of the vessel being ordered into Venezuelan waters. The Claimant also claimed contractual interest on both late payments and wholly unpaid invoices. The Respondent, while retaining counsel, advanced no substantive defense to the merits of the claims.

Tribunal's Reasoning and Findings

In the absence of a defense, the Tribunal meticulously reviewed the Claimant's documentary evidence, which included certificates of delivery and redelivery, invoices, and witness testimony from the Claimant's corporate officer. The Tribunal found the Claimant contractually entitled to the claimed unpaid hire, bunker costs, and war risk premiums under the express terms of the charterparty. However, demonstrating analytical rigor, the Tribunal rejected a distinct claim for hull cleaning costs, noting that while the charterparty permitted such claims in certain circumstances, the specific cost was neither adequately explained nor evidenced. Furthermore, the Tribunal properly accounted for a credit owed to the Respondent for bunkers remaining on board upon redelivery, adjusting the interest accrual calculations to reflect this partial offset.

Operative Directions and Relief

The Tribunal issued a dispositive ruling ordering the Respondent to pay a principal sum of US$2,482,301.51. Additionally, the Tribunal awarded US$106,104.50 in interest for late payments and US$779,914.75 in accrued interest on the unpaid principal up to the date of the Award. The Tribunal further ordered the Respondent to bear the costs of the arbitration reference, including the Tribunal's fees, while reserving all other issues for future determination.