In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Case No A53-32565/25</span>, the Arbitrazh Court of Rostov Region ruled that a demurrage dispute did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement relied upon by the award creditor and therefore refused enforcement of a London-seated arbitral award.
The dispute arose from a contract of carriage for the shipment of grain by sea from the Rostov Region in Russia to Turkey. The contract was concluded in 2021 between the Russian company OOO Fingrain and the Estonian company AMSTRADshipping OU and was recorded in a “fixture recap”, a written summary typically exchanged by email in maritime transactions. The fixture recap included the following arbitration clause: “GA ARB IN UK ENGLISH LAW TO BE APPLY BE” [sic.]
Following delays in unloading the vessel, AMSTRADshipping commenced arbitration under the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (“<span class="news-text_medium">LMAA</span>”) Small Claims Procedure and obtained an award against Fingrain (the “<span class="news-text_medium">First Award</span>”). Fingrain did not participate in that arbitration. In 2024, AMSTRADshipping applied to enforce the First Award in Russia, but enforcement was refused by the Russian courts (<span class="news-text_italic-underline">Case No A53-33710/2023</span>).
Later in 2024, AMSTRADshipping obtained a further award against Fingrain for demurrage under the same LMAA Small Claims Procedure, albeit before a different arbitrator (the “<span class="news-text_medium">Second Award</span>”). Fingrain participated in the second arbitration and raised a jurisdictional objection, contending that the dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. Fingrain also resisted enforcement of the Second Award in Russia on the same basis.
Fingrain argued that the arbitration clause was limited to disputes relating to general average, a specific concept under maritime law and did not extend to other disputes arising under the contract of carriage, including demurrage claims. Fingrain submitted that it had agreed to arbitration in London only in respect of general average disputes, which are technically complex and for which appropriate expertise, particularly in English law, was not readily available in Russia. It maintained that all other disputes were intended to fall within the jurisdiction of the Russian state courts.
AMSTRADshipping contended that the Russian translation of the arbitration clause was inaccurate and should instead be interpreted as providing for “General average, [and] arbitration in the United Kingdom, English law to apply”, thereby extending the arbitration agreement to disputes beyond general average.
The Court rejected AMSTRADshipping’s interpretation, holding that it amounted to an attempt to rewrite the arbitration clause. On the Court’s reading, the parties had agreed to refer to arbitration only disputes arising in connection with general average and demurrage claims therefore fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.
The Court further observed that similar arguments had already been considered and rejected in the earlier proceedings concerning enforcement of the First Award. However, unlike in the earlier decision, the Court did not rely on considerations of Russian public policy in refusing enforcement of the Second Award.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Case No A53-32565/25</span>, Arbitrazh Court of Rostov Region, 6 February 2026 (decision available in Russian).
