Contract analysis

1. Executive Summary This memorandum provides our assessment of the risk posed by the application filed on 19 August 2024 by Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd. ("KMH") to set aside LCIA Award No. 224718 (the "Award" or the "Final Award"), which was rendered on 28 June 2024 in favour of our client, Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA ("TSL"). The application was filed in the Commercial Court under Claim No. CL-2024-000487

2. Background 2.1 The Underlying Dispute The dispute between TSL and KMH arises out of three time charter-party agreements for dry-bulk carriers, each governed by English law and containing LCIA arbitration clauses designating London as the seat of arbitration. The three charters, their key terms, and the vessels to which they relate are summarised below. M/V *Aegean Fortuna* Charter-Party (signed 15 March 2019). The

3. Legal Framework for Challenge of Arbitral Awards 3.1 Section 68 — Serious Irregularity

Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 provides the mechanism by which a party may challenge an arbitral award on the ground of "serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award." The statutory test is demanding and is structured in two stages. First, the applicant must establish that a serious irregularity falling within the closed list of categories set out in Section 68(2)(a) through (i) h

Section 69 of the Act provides for a right of appeal to the court on a question of law arising out of an award made in the proceedings. However, this right is expressly subject to two critical limitations. First, Section 69(1) provides that an appeal may be brought only "unless otherwise agreed by the parties." This provision gives effect to the principle of party autonomy which underpins the Act, permitting parties

4. Analysis of KMH's Section 68 Grounds KMH advances four grounds under Section 68 of the Act. Each is analysed below. 4.1 Ground 1: Alleged Failure to Give KMH a Fair Opportunity to Present Its Case (Section 68(2)(a)) KMH's Argument. KMH contends that the tribunal unfairly curtailed its cross-examination of TSL's quantum expert, Mr. Andrew Prescott of Harborline Advisors, and refused to admit certain late-filed evid

5. Analysis of KMH's Section 69 Grounds 5.1 Threshold Issue: Exclusion of Section 69 by Agreement Before addressing the substantive grounds of KMH's purported Section 69 appeal, it is necessary to address the threshold issue which, in our assessment, is dispositive of the entire Section 69 challenge. The LCIA Rules (2020), under which the arbitration was conducted, contain at Article 26.8 a waiver provision which rea

6. Assessment of "Substantial Injustice" Requirement (Section 68) Even if KMH could establish that a serious irregularity falling within one of the categories of Section 68(2) had occurred — which, for the reasons set out in Section 4 above, we do not consider to be the case — KMH would need separately to demonstrate that the irregularity "has caused or will cause substantial injustice" to it. This is an independent

7. Strategic Considerations 7.1 Impact on Enforcement Timetable The filing of the set-aside application does not operate as an automatic stay of enforcement under English law. Section 70(4) of the Act provides that the court may order the applicant to provide security for the amount of the award as a condition of making an order under Section 67, 68, or 69, but it does not impose an automatic stay. The enforcement pr