Originally from Navigating Maritime Arbitration: The Experts Speak - Second Edition

Preview Page

In arbitration, disputes under related, even back-to-back, contracts can lead to inconsistent results.  However, if arbitrations under such contracts can be consolidated, the risk of inconsistent results can be greatly reduced if not eliminated altogether. In addition, the consolidation of related arbitrations can reduce the expense (in terms of evidence production, witness testimony, legal and arbitral fees) that would be incurred in separate proceedings. Thus, consolidation is a salutary aspect of arbitration but there are limitations to its availability that must be considered. This chapter will examine the judicial treatment of consolidation and the availability of this procedural remedy by rule or contract. 

I. JUDICIAL TREATMENT OF CONSOLIDATION IN ARBITRATION

Consolidation of arbitral proceedings can occur in one of three ways: by agreement of the parties, by operation of a rule of the relevant arbitration organization or as a result of a court order. This section considers the last of these three possibilities. 

In Matter of Arbitration between Vigo Steamship Corp. and Marship Corp. of Monrovia, 26 N.Y. 2d 157 (N.Y. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 819 (1970), the court of first instance ordered the consolidation of maritime charter party disputes—one under a time charter and the other under a voyage charter—involving allegations of vessel damage. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed, noting that “[w]e recognize the power to consolidate, under certain circumstances which do not do violence to the agreement of the parties.”