Ocean Wide Shipping Corp (Ocean Wide) was the owner of the M/V Punica. The vessel was time chartered to Canadian Forest Navigation Co Ltd (Canadian Forest), who then sub-time chartered the vessel to Trans Sea Transport NV (Trans Sea). Trans Sea in turn voyage chartered the vessel to Duferco SA (Duferco). During its voyage from Italy to the US, the vessel was rolling moderately and the cargo collapsed. After consulting with Ocean Wide, the master set a course for Cagliari, Sardinia, as a port of refuge and Ocean Wide declared a general average. The relevant parties commenced arbitration proceedings in New York. The arbitration award found that Duferco was liable to Ocean Wide in damages for the consequences of the improper stowage.

Duferco brought an action to have the arbitration award vacated on the grounds that it was rendered in 'manifest disregard of the law'. Clause 19 of both time charters specified that general average should be adjusted, stated and settled according to the York-Antwerp Rules 1974. Rule 10.b of the York-Antwerp Rules 1974 states that 'the cost of handling on board or discharging cargo, fuel or stores shall not be admissible as general average when incurred solely for the purpose of restowage due to shifting during the voyage, unless such restowage is necessary for the common safety'. Duferco argued that the arbitral tribunal disregarded the provisions of the York-Antwerp Rules 1974 by concluding that the costs of restowage were excluded from the general average and were to be solely borne by Duferco. Ocean Wide and Canadian Forest filed a cross-motion to confirm the award.

Held: The motion to vacate the award is denied and the cross-motion to confirm the award is granted.

The court found that the arbitral tribunal made a reasonable inference based on the evidence before it, given that cargo interests jointly prepared the general average adjustment and that there was evidence of the owner making numerous efforts to obtain the most economically advantageous restowage agreement and to save time. Therefore, the claim of Duferco was at best a claim that the panel erroneously decided the facts or incorrectly applied the law, which were not grounds for vacating an arbitration award.