N.V. Gebr. Van Uden’s Scheepvaart en Agentuur Maatschappij v. V/O Sovfracht
United Kingdom House of Lords
[1943] A.C. 203 (1943)

- Written by Deanna Curl, JD
Facts
Van Uden’s Scheepvaart (the shipping company) (plaintiff) was a Dutch shipping company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands with its principal place of business in Rotterdam. In August of 1939, the shipping company entered into a charterparty (the contract) for lease of their steamship Waalhaven to V/O Sovfracht (the charterers) (defendant), a Russian company. According to the contract’s terms, any disputes that arose under the contract were to be referred to arbitration in London. A dispute later arose under the contract, and the shipping company sought arbitration. In April 1940, both parties appointed an arbitrator and were proceeding toward arbitration. By the second week of May, however, Germany had completed its invasion of the Netherlands and occupied the entire country. As a result, both the charterers and their appointed arbitrator refused to proceed with arbitration, citing that the shipping company had become an enemy of the charterers because the business was located in an enemy-occupied nation. The shipping company filed suit and requested the appointment of an arbitration umpire. The trial court appointed an arbitration umpire, and the court of appeal upheld the appointment. The charterers then appealed to the House of Lords.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Viscount Simon, L.C.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

