Refusal to send shipping contract dispute to arbitration as relevant clause had not been concluded between parties

Contract dispute - carriage of goods by sea - breach of contract - damages - defendant seeks to stay proceedings - Article 8 of the Model Law - UNCITRAL - Arbitration Act 2010 - O.56, r.3 RSC - seeks to refer proceedings to arbitration - plaintiff a mining company - first defendant a ship broker - second defendant is ship owner - defendants say agreement for carriage of goods in place - defendants say charter-party agreed - plaintiff says no contract between it and second defendant - says no charter-party - instant proceedings commenced in March 2013 - second defendant commenced arbitration proceedings later in 2013 - contract in question contains no arbitration clause - charter party contains arbitration clause - whether contract concluded between plaintiff and second defendant - if so, whether charter party concluded and whether arbitration clause from same incorporated into main agreement - jurisdiction of court to consider existence of arbitration agreement - burden of proof - whether prima facie or full judicial consideration - courts have power to decide whether arbitration agreement exists - Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle - whether arbitration agreement can be established on: (i) a prima facie basis; or (ii) after full judicial consideration - court finds that in this instance it should give matter "full judicial consideration" - charter-party "subject to details" - plain and ordinary meaning - court finds no concluded framework agreement or charter-party - no arbitration agreement in existence - in any event, court finds this is not an appropriate case to incorporate arbitration clause in charter-party into framework agreement - refuses stay and refuses to send proceedings to arbitration.