专访伦敦海事律所jacksonparton合伙人nickparton-航运专栏-航运界.pdfVIP

Jackson PartonNick Parton This is the text of an interview with Nick Parton of the London maritime law firm, Jackson Parton. The interview was arranged for ship.sh by FOBN, the international networking platform for shipping professionals. 1. Ship.sh: It always used to be said that arbitration in London was fairer, faster and provided better value for money than litigation. Is that still the case today? When should parties arbitrate rather than litigate? Nick Parton: I have to say that today London arbitration is just as expensive as litigation. That is not how it always was. In the old days, arbitration was conducted without lawyers. The parties chose a shipping professional as arbitrator. The two parties put forward their case and then the arbitrator made the final decision. It was quick and inexpensive. I can still remember arbitration being like that. Today, unlike in the past, arbitrations require meticulous attention to detail and this can have an important effect on the final outcome. Nick Parton: Therefore, London arbitration can take as much time as litigation, and will be more costly than litigation, unless it is on documents alone – this can be significantly quicker and somewhat cheaper. A company should arbitrate if they want to keep the details private, otherwise it is probably better to litigate. With arbitration, there are three main distinguishing features: one is the cost of the arbitrators, the second is the juggling of the diaries of the various parties to arrange the hearing, and the third is the fact that a High Court judge is free whereas you have to pay the arbitrator. Arbitrators appointed by lawyers tend to be more generous to lawyers when it comes to awarding costs than a High Court