Arbitral Digest

Matter

Smithbridge Guam Inc v Swire Shipping Pte Ltd (Federal Court of Australia QUD 112 of 2026)

Seat
United Kingdom
Applicable rules
London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) Terms
  1. 23 February 2026United Kingdom

    23 February 2026United Kingdom

    Notice of Arbitration dated 23 February 2026

    Supporting details

    2 participants
    Swire Shipping Pte Ltd
    Smithbridge Guam Inc

    10 days later · 10 days

  2. 5 March 2026Australia

    5 March 2026Australia

    Order of the Federal Court of Australia in the case QUD 112 of 2026 dated 5 March 2026

    Federal Court of Australia

    Decision summary
    The Court granted an ex parte injunction restraining Swire Shipping Pte Ltd from continuing or prosecuting the London arbitration, commencing further arbitration concerning the Booking Note, or taking steps to restrain the plaintiffs from pursuing the proceeding.

    Supporting details

    1 participant
    Federal Court of Australia

    5 days later · 5 days

  3. 10 March 2026Australia

    10 March 2026Australia

    Orders of the Federal Court of Australia in the case QUD 112 of 2026 dated 10 March 2026

    Federal Court of Australia

    Decision summary
    The Court continued the injunction restraining Swire Shipping Pte Ltd from pursuing the London arbitration and related proceedings.

    Supporting details

    1 participant
    Federal Court of Australia

    13 days later · 13 days

  4. 23 March 2026Australia

    23 March 2026Australia

    Orders of the Federal Court of Australia in the case QUD 112 of 2026 dated 23 March 2026

    Federal Court of Australia

    Decision summary
    The Court continued the injunction restraining Swire Shipping Pte Ltd from pursuing the London arbitration and related proceedings.

    Supporting details

    1 participant
    Federal Court of Australia

    3 months and 16 days later · 108 days

  5. 9 July 2026Australia

    9 July 2026Australia

    Judgment of the Federal Court of Australia in the case QUD 112 of 2026 dated 9 July 2026

    Federal Court of Australia

    Decision summary
    The Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ interlocutory application for anti-arbitration and anti-suit relief, discharged the earlier restraint, and stayed and referred the plaintiffs’ claims against Swire Shipping Pte Ltd to arbitration in London under the LMAA Terms. The Court held that the arbitration agreement was effective because the Booking Note was a contract of affreightment or voyage charterparty and was not a sea carriage document or a document within s 10(1)(b)(iii) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 (Cth).

    Supporting details

    16 authorities · 11 participants
    Smithbridge Guam Inc
    Representative
    Mr M Harvey KC (For: Smithbridge Guam Inc · Smithbridge Group Pty Ltd)
    Representative
    Mr N Luxton (For: Smithbridge Guam Inc · Smithbridge Group Pty Ltd)
    Representative
    Colin Biggers & Paisley (For: Smithbridge Guam Inc · Smithbridge Group Pty Ltd)
    Smithbridge Group Pty Ltd
    Representative
    Mr M Harvey KC (For: Smithbridge Guam Inc · Smithbridge Group Pty Ltd)
    Representative
    Mr N Luxton (For: Smithbridge Guam Inc · Smithbridge Group Pty Ltd)
    Representative
    Colin Biggers & Paisley (For: Smithbridge Guam Inc · Smithbridge Group Pty Ltd)
    Swire Shipping Pte Ltd
    Representative
    Mr G Nell SC (For: Swire Shipping Pte Ltd)
    Representative
    Mr S Walpole (For: Swire Shipping Pte Ltd)
    Representative
    Thynne & Macartney (For: Swire Shipping Pte Ltd)
    Townsville Marine Logistics Pty Ltd
    Federal Court of Australia

    Authorities cited

    16
    • Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 (Cth)
      statute
    • International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth)
      statute
    • Explanatory Memorandum, Carriage of Goods by Sea Bill 1991 (Cth)
      legislative material
    • Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 (UK)
      statute
    • Browner International Ltd v Monarch Shipping Co Ltd (the “European Enterprise”) ([1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 185)
      case
    • Carmichael Rail Network Pty Ltd v BBC Chartering Carriers GmbH & Co KG ([2024] HCA 4; 281 CLR 171)
      case
    • Dampskibsselskabet Norden A/S v Gladstone Civil Pty Ltd ([2013] FCAFC 107; 216 FCR 469)
      case
    • Kyokuyo Co Ltd v AP Møller-Maersk A/S (The Maersk Tangier) ([2018] EWCA (Civ) 778; [2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 59)
      case
    • McCarren & Co Ltd v Humber International Transport Ltd (The Vechscroon) ([1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 301)
      case
    • Moscow V/O Exportkhleb v Helmville Ltd (The “Jocelyne”) ([1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 121)
      case
    • Mount Isa Mines Ltd v The Ship “Thor Commander” ([2018] FCA 1326; 263 FCR 181)
      case
    • Poralu Marine Australia Pty Ltd v MV Dijksgracht ([2022] FCA 1038)
      case
    • Poralu Marine Australia Pty Ltd v MV Dijksgracht ([2023] FCAFC 147; 300 FCR 290)
      case
    • Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority ([1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355)
      case
    • Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Steam Navigation Co Ltd ([1954] 2 QB 402)
      case
    • Tanning Research Laboratories Inc v O’Brien ((1990) 169 CLR 332)
      case

Matter record

Report a correction

Smithbridge Guam Inc v Swire Shipping Pte Ltd (Federal Court of Australia QUD 112 of 2026) · Matter