I must emphasize at the outset of this paper that while there are differences of style and procedure between London and New York, the awards of maritime arbitrators in both places are generally compatible with one another on the merits. By and large, commercial men with long experience in shipping tend to see eye-to-eye in adjudicating disputes. Not only are joint awards or unanimous awards the norm, but it is not uncommon for maritime arbitrators in different places to come out the same way on particular issues, without knowledge of or reference to each other’s work1.

Differences between English and American arbitrators in the resolution of particular issues are far more likely to reflect the quirks of individuals rather than firmly held opposing views on the two sides of the Atlantic. The principal exception is when the English courts intervene to force a result that commercial men would otherwise reject2.

There are other similarities between maritime arbitration in London and New York which deserve mention. A study done in America suggests that because of the speed and simplicity of commercial arbitration, such proceedings are far more likely than court litigation to be carried through to completion rather than get settled3. Parties may see this as an advantage. However, lawyers, who have much sad experience with the hazzards of both judges and arbitrators, know that it is most often to their clients’ financial advantage to settle rather than to fight. I believe that in both London and New York extra skill is required to promote settlement before arbitration proceedings acquire too much momentum.

In my experience, arbitrating a dispute through to award is on the average 60 to 70 % cheaper than litigating to judgment in the courts. While I believe there are similar cost savings in London, the formalities of English arbitration proceedings probably make the savings somewhat less.

An important advantage of maritime arbitration everywhere is that commercial men nearly always decide disputes on the merits rather than on legalistic grounds. I believe this generally causes the trade to approve more readily of the results of arbitration than of litigation.

The differences between maritime arbitration in London and New York are mostly procedural in nature. A few can be outcome-determinative. By that I mean that the