Many may recall in the early months of 2021 a story as bizarre as it was disruptive. A 400-metre-long ship, the ‘Ever Given’, had lodged itself firmly in the pits of the Suez Canal, one of two of the world’s most vital shipping corridors. Nothing could get past, and so its dislodgement became the most pressing maritime matter at that point. Nearly two years later, the ship’s owners are still facing legal action. Just this February, for example, Maersk, a large Danish international container shipping company brought proceedings against the ship’s management.

With the Suez Canal spectacle in mind, it is worth considering how disputes can work with so many parties and so many jurisdictions. “Compulsory Consolidation in Arbitral Proceedings: An Infringement on Party Autonomy?” is a chapter in the new book Commercial and Maritime Law in China and Europe.[1] The nearly-300-page text details with efficiency a great number of the most topical dispute-resolution issues within the China – Europe shipping route, the bloodline of one of the world’s largest trading zones. The chapter itself provides much needed consideration of how the consolidation of parallel proceedings by arbitration agreements occurs within the sphere of commercial and maritime law. Crucially, it seeks to answer fundamental questions about the tension between efficiency and party autonomy.

The chapter is co-authored by Dr Lijun Liz Zhao and Catherine Green, who both have a rich history in arbitration. Dr Zhao is a Senior Lecturer in Corporate and Commercial Law at City, University of London. She has written extensively on topics related to global trade, such as the World Trade Organisation, the Belt and Road Initiative and, as is the case here, maritime disputes.

Catherine Green is an arbitrator and Executive Director of the New Zealand International Arbitration Centre. She has previous history in civil litigation working in New Zealand, London, and the Cayman Islands. Catherine has also written and presented extensively on arbitration practice and procedure and on diverse specialist arbitration topics covering international, commercial, construction and family law.

The chapter firmly establishes both the benefits and disadvantages of mandated consolidation. Firstly, there is the cost and efficiency factor. Orders demanding consolidation from the court can easily create a convoluted web of various procedural disputes, stemming from questions around which arbitration rules should apply. On the other hand, mandated consolidation in theory has a better chance of producing consistent outcomes for parties.

Combing through the procedures of various jurisdictions and bodies, the chapter is able to illustrate the variety in which consolidation of proceedings are permitted, managed, and mandated. Fitting in with the book’s overall theme of maritime arbitration and trade between China and Europe, the chapter assesses how it looks between the two, with some jurisdictions being identified as having clearer rules than others.

One of the jurisdictions highlighted for its clarity on the issue is the Netherlands. The chapter notes that unless the parties to proceedings agree otherwise, the District Court in Amsterdam is empowered by the Dutch Arbitration Act 1986 to order the whole or partial consolidation of two or more connected arbitrations. This portion of the chapter then lists the conditions upon which this may occur. Following a thoughtful review of the Netherlands approach, recognition is then made of Hong Kong as having a similar system. It too may order consolidation in the absence of an agreement. Through this direct comparison of these jurisdictions, the chapter offers an insight into how their neighbours may trend legislatively if the process proves itself successful.

For legal professionals involved in maritime arbitration, “Compulsory Consolidation in Arbitral Proceedings: An Infringement on Party Autonomy” is of course vital reading. Beyond that, it is highly recommended for anybody with a curiosity about the legal questions around party autonomy and arbitration. The chapter is topical, and as China re-emerges from its recent fight against Covid-19, it becomes clear that there has never been a more important time to understand its trade.

[1] Shengnan Jia and Lijun Lin Zhao (ed) Commercial and Maritime Law in China and Europe (Informa Law from Routledge, Abingdon, 2023).

About the author

Alexander Lyall is a Research Clerk in The ADR Centre’s Knowledge Management team working with NZIAC. He gained his LLB from the University of Canterbury, and he also holds a BA in political science, media studies, and Te Reo Māori. His writing has previously been published by Radio New Zealand, The Spinoff, The Press, ReSolution and BuildLaw.


Alexander Lyall

Research Clerk

Catherine Green


Federal Court of Australia Enforces Foreign Arbitral Award of $40 Million

By Sam Dorne In Guoao Holding Group Co Ltd v Xue (No 2) [2022] FCA 1584, the Federal Court of Australia granted enforcement in Australia of a foreign arbitral award issued in China, and dismissed objections that enforcement would be contrary to Australian public...

Arbitrator’s Exercise of Phantom Jurisdiction

By Richard Pidgeon   In CMB v Fund, Cattle and Management [2023] HKCFI 760, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance ruled that a pre-emptive arbitration should be set aside as there was no dispute between the immediate parties to the arbitration and the award was...

An Orthodox Operation of Religious Arbitration

By Richard Pidgeon   In Tayar v Feldman [2022] FCA 1432, the Federal Court of Australia considered the enforcement of an arbitral award at the intersection of Orthodox Jewish law and the secular Commercial Arbitration Act (Victoria) 2011 and Bankruptcy Act 1966...

Subject matter arbitrability: Singaporean seat

By Richard Pidgeon   In Anupam Mittal v Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings [2023] SGCA 1, the Singaporean Court of Appeal settled on a new composite approach to addressing pre-award arbitrability, namely review of the public policy position of the subject...

Husky v Whittaker’s appeal outcome: Ontario Court of Appeal upholds stay of court proceedings for referral to NZIAC arbitration

By Richard Pidgeon In Husky Food Importers & Distributors Limited v JH Whittaker & Sons Limited, 2023 ONCA 260, the Ontario Court of Appeal has provided guidance on the test and standard of proof required to stay court proceedings in favour of an arbitration...

Gas dispute to be aired in arbitration

By Richard Pidgeon The Supreme Court of Western Australia in Power and Water Corporation v Eni Australia B V [2022] WASC 376 considered whether a party to a gas supply agreement was justified in attempting to avoid an arbitration clause. On the facts, the application...

Where do directors’ duties lie once insolvency looms?

By Sam Dorne In BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment which examined the role of directors when a company becomes, or is likely to become, insolvent. The decision looked at when directors were to consider the...

Is a party required to accept non-contractual performance during a force majeure event?

By Kate Holland The English Court of Appeal made waves in the last part of 2022 with its decision in MUR Shipping BV v RTI Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1406. On a non-uanimous basis, the Court of Appeal held that a party had not been entitled to rely on a force majeure clause...

Separability and arbitral tribunals being ‘open business’??

By Richard Pidgeon In DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v Gemini Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1555 (DHL v Gemini), the Court of Appeal of England and Wales dealt with the separability principle. The principle deals with the existence of an arbitration...

Supreme Court of New South Wales finds force majeure clause offered no protection for loss and damage to goods in transit

By Kate Holland   In Woolworths Group Ltd v Twentieth Super Pace Nominees Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 344, the Supreme Court of New South Wales applied a narrow interpretation to the meaning and effect of a force majeure clause, finding that it did not override other...
Skip to content