Carry on suing in England – at least if you’re suing a non-European

In matters of tort foreign defendants domiciled in the EEA are reasonably well-protected from the exorbitant jurisdiction of the English courts. Both Brussels I Recast and Lugano II limit jurisdction to cases where where the act leading to liability, or the harm done by it, happened in England: furthermore, Euro-law makes it clear that the reference to harm here is fairly restrictive, referring only to direct harm and not to the financial effects of it, such as the straitening of an English widow’s circumstances following a wrongful death abroad.

By contrast, there is no such luck for defendants domiciled outside the EEA. For some time conflicts lawyers have remarked that English claimants, especially personal injury claimants, find it remarkably easy to establish jurisdiction against them. This is because CPR, PD6B 3.1(9), allows service out not only where damage results from an act “committed … within the jurisdiction” but also in all cases of damage “sustained …within the jurisdiction.”, and in a series of cases such as Booth v Phillips [2004] 1 WLR 3292 and Cooley v Ramsey [2008] ILPr 27 this has been held to cover almost any loss, even consequential, suffered in the jurisdiction. And in Four Seasons Holdings Inc v Brownlie [2017] UKSC 80 the Supreme Court by a majority (Lords Wilson and Clarke and Lady Hale vs Lords Sumption and Hughes) has now weakly upheld this distinction.

International law enthusiasts will know that this case arose out of a car accident in Egypt in which the late Prof Ian Brownlie was tragically killed and his widow was injured. The actual decision was in the event a foregone conclusion: by the time the case reached the Supreme Court it was clear that the defendants, the franchising company behind the Brownlies’ Egyptian tourist hotel which had organised the fatal car ride, had never contracted with the Brownlies and was not liable in tort for the acts of the hotel itself. Nevertheless, the majority in the Supreme Court, doubting the decision of the Court of Appeal on this point, made it clear that, while not finally deciding the issue, they were not prepared to condemn the older authorities. It seems likely that future cases will follow their lead.

One further point. Lord Sumption and Lady Hale made the point that the decision whether a contract was made in England, another of the “gateways” in non-EEA cases (see CPR, PD6B 3.1(6)), was in the light of cases like Entores v Miles Far East Corpn [1955] 2 QB 327, pretty arbitrary and could do with a look from the Rules Committee. They were right. Let’s hope something gets done.

Valuers’ negligence: no claim for more than lender loses

Not often do you find a Supreme Court decision in only 15 paragraphs that is clear, sensible and palpably right. Today we got just that in the valuers’ negligence decision of Tiuta International Ltd (in liquidation) v De Villiers Surveyors Ltd [2017] UKSC 77. Although a land case, this is of equal, and large, significance to ship and other finance.

In 2011 Tiuta lent £2.475 million for a bijou Home Counties development against a valuation by De Villiers of £2.3 million undeveloped / £4.5 million complete, of which no complaint was made. After some months the developers ran into difficulties. In 2012 Tiuta made a new loan of £3.088 million against the same development, of which £2.799 million went to discharge the old loan plus accrued interest, and the balance of £289,000 was new money. This latter advance was made against a new valuation by De Villiers in the sum of £3.5 million undeveloped / £4.9 million complete. Shortly after all this, the developers went bust and Tiuta lost big money.

Tiuta sued De Villiers for their loss, alleging negligence in the second valuation. De Villiers riposted that they could not possibly be answerable for more than £289,000, since even if they had not been negligent Tiuta would still have been exposed to the original, largely irrecoverable, balance of £2.799 million. To everyone’s surprise, a majority in the Court of Appeal disagreed. The 2011 loan had been paid off and was now out of the reckoning: the 2012 loan in the figure of £3.088 million counted as an entirely new advance made against the suspect valuation, and on principle any loss on it was recoverable. McCombe LJ, the dissentient, was left gasping and stretching his eyes (remember Hilaire Belloc’s Matilda?) at the idea that new money injection of a mere £289,000 could give Tiuta, free gratis and for nothing, a claim of up to £3 million that had not been there before.

The Supreme Court swiftly restored orthodoxy. Whether the lenders provided new money of £289,000 and left the existing loan of £2.799 million untouched, or provided a new loan of £3 million-plus which was partly used to pay off the original loan, the result was the same: the only net increase in exposure was £289,000 and that was all that was recoverable. Nor could Tiuta get home by saying that the repayment of the original loan was somehow a collateral benefit to Tiuta: as Lord Sumption observed with merciless logic, it was in fact neither collateral nor a benefit.

Advantage PI insurers, to be sure. On the other hand, this still leaves some questions unanswered. If the first lender had been someone other than Tiuta, the result would presumably have been different. Does this mean that if a lender wants to avoid the result in Tiuta, all it has to do is to make sure that when it lends several times to the same project, each loan is made by a separate subsidiary special purpose vehicle (quite easy to arrange)? One suspects lawyers are already busy dealing with questions like this and advising accordingly.

Getting a freezing order can damage your wallet — official

The decision in Fiona Trust v Privalov [2016] EWHC 2163 (Comm) (noted in this blog here) has been upheld in the Court of Appeal: see SCF Tankers Ltd & Ors v Privalov [2017] EWCA Civ 1877. Readers will remember that Russian shipping conglomerate SCF (aka Sovcomflot, previously Fiona) sued another Russian businessman for serious money, alleging that he had bribed its officers to enter into all sorts of disadvantageous agreements, and in support of the action got a freezing order for something over half-a-billion dollars. Having recovered a measly $16 million, it was then hit by Males J with an order on its undertaking in damages amounting to something close to $50 million — a costly victory indeed. Little of substance to report about the CA decision: it essentially approved the findings below on causation and mitigation. Males J’s judgment, and our blog post, remain the go-to place for detailed discussion of the principles to be applied.

Service of arbitration proceedings in cyberspace — don’t make idle assumptions.

In Glencore Agriculture BV v Conqueror Holdings Ltd [2017] EWHC 2893 (Comm), decided today, Conqueror had a smallish demurrage claim in respect of a 30,000 dwt bulker, the Amity, which charterers Glencore had ordered to wait idle for a time before taking on a cargo of corn at Ilychevsk in Ukraine. Glencore’s point of contact with Conqueror in arranging the nuts and bolts of loading and dealing with the delay had been one FO, a fairly junior Glencore man: not surprisingly all messages had been sent by email to and from FO’s Glencore email address.

There was an arbitration clause in the (Synacomex) charter. To get the arbitration ball rolling for its demurrage claim, Conqueror sent notice of its appointment of an arbitrator to FO’s email address (but nowhere else). Nothing happened, despite a number of reminders sent to the same address: in the event Conqueror’s arbitrator determined the claim in Conqueror’s favour as sole arbitrator.

Glencore applied for a declaration that the award did not bind it, under s 72 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (and also ss 67-68 of the same Act). Had there been proper service? Popplewell J said No. The issue in an arbitration case fell to be decided on ordinary principles of agency. FO, being a fairly junior dogsbody in the Glencore corporate machine, had neither express nor implied authority to receive formal service of claims: nor had there been any holding out of him as having it, merely because he had made the arrangements for the loading.

Entirely correct, in the view of this blog. And one doesn’t have to be very sympathetic to Conqueror. They could always have used old-fashioned snailmail sent to Glencore’s head office: see s 76(4(b) of the Act. It seems, with respect, that someone at Conqueror just indolently assumed that it would do to email a contact in the company he happened to have dealt with before. That won’t, and shouldn’t, do. One more simple point for solicitors acting for arbitration parties to add to their checklist.

Good news for English judgment creditors — oh, and the beneficiary of a credit is who the credit says it is.

In Taurus Petroleum Ltd v State Oil Marketing Company of the Ministry of Oil, Republic of Iraq [2017] UKSC 64 Shell bought two parcels of Iraqi oil in 2013 from the state Iraqi oil company SOMO. Its bank, Credit Agricole in London, issued letters of credit governed by English law naming SOMO as beneficiary, but containing a clause as follows (essentially to comply with the Iraqi sanctions regime):

“[A] Provided all terms and conditions of this letter of credit are complied with, proceeds of this letter of credit will be irrevocably paid in to your account with Federal Reserve Bank New York, with reference to ‘Iraq Oil Proceeds Account’.These instructions will be followed irrespective of any conflicting instructions contained in the seller’s commercial invoice or any transmitted letter.
[B] We hereby engage with the beneficiary and Central Bank of Iraq that documents drawn under and in compliance with the terms of this credit will be duly honoured upon
presentation as specified to credit CBI A/c with Federal Reserve Bank New York.”
Taurus subsequently got an arbitration award against SOMO of something like $9 million, which it wanted to enforce against the benefit of the letter of credit under a TPDO (garnishee in old-fashioned English). Three questions: (1) who was the creditor under the LCs,  SOMO or the Central Bank? (2) where was the debt situated? (3) should a receiver be appointed?
On the situation of the debt, the whole court agreed, reversing the CA, that it was London, where the debtor, the London branch of Credit Agricole, was situated. It followed that the English court had jurisdiction to make a TPDO. There was no reason to treat a LC debt as any different from any other debt: Power Curber International Ltd v National Bank of Kuwait S.A.K. [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1233, regarding such debts as situated in the place of payment, was wrong.
All their Lordships felt that a receivership order was appropriate.
On the identity of the creditor, the decision was by a majority. The majority said, reversing the CA, that it was SOMO. They were named as beneficiaries. The agreement to pay the Oil Proceeds Account in New York made no difference in this respect: it was merely a collateral agreement. (Presumably Taurus had some arrangement with the Central Bank to collect from them: we are not told).
On balance, a good decision for creditors chasing funds through TPDOs. Its effect is essentially that any LC issued by a London bank, even a branch of a foreign institution, now seems fair game, even if payable in Mannhein, Manila or Madagascar. Forget Brexit: London is likely to remain the place to be.

Moral: don’t arbitrate in Russia if you can help it

Decided eight weeks ago but just up on Bailii, the arbitration decision in Maximov v Open Joint Stock Company “Novolipetsky Metallurgichesky Kombinat” [2017] EWHC 1911 (Comm) is worth a brief note. Having sold a company to a buyer and faced a dispute as to the price, Nikolai Maximov got an arbitral award from a Russian tribunal for some 8 billion roubles (then about $250 million). A Russian court then proceeded at the buyer’s request to annul the award on very doubtful grounds, including those not raised by the parties. Two appeals failed. The seller sued in England under the New York Convention and at common law to enforce the award: to the buyer’s plea that the award had been set aside, the seller asked the court not to enforce that judgment on the basis that it must have been biased. Despite very grave suspicions about the propriety, let alone the correctness, of the Russian judgment, and despite evidence that the Russian judicial system left a great deal to be desired, especially when (as here) the Russian government had a strong interest in reducing or eliminating the award, the judge, Sir Michael Burton, was clear that this was not enough. Perverse and very suspicious it might be, but even here his Lordship was unable to draw the inference that the only explanation was bias.

Two further points for future reference. At [16] the judge expressed the view that a judgment given on one point out of evident bias would probably not be upheld even if there was another ground for the judgment that was not successfully challenged on that ground. And at [64] he strongly doubted a subsidiary argument by the defendant that once a court with jurisdiction had annulled an award that was an end of the matter however biased the court, since there would simply be nothing to enforce. And rightly so, we suggest: apart from anything else, the moral hazard that such a rule would engender is fairly obvious.

As we said at the beginning, arbitrate in Russia very much at your own risk.


The difficult we do immediately. The impossible, at least offshore, takes a little longer.

It can be disconcerting to find, towards the beginning of the report of a decision in the Supreme Court, something like this:


Don’t despair. The point at issue in the August 3 case of MT Hojgaard AS v EON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd [2017] UKSC 59  was actually quite straightforward.

Problems appeared in a wind-farm off the Cumbrian coast, which were traceable to weaknesses in the foundations. The owners, E-ON, sued the constructor, Hojgaard, for breach of contract. In particular they relied on a warranty that the structure had been built to last for 20 years. There was some doubt over the meaning of the warranty (did it mean the thing would last 20 years, as the parties thought, or that its design was such that it ought to do so, as Lord Neuberger opined?); but the point didn’t matter, since here the collapse took place only a very short time after the whole caboodle had been built in the first place.

The claim thus looked straightforward, but here a difficulty arose. Like all major construction projects, the constructor had to observe detailed specifications. In this case the specification was named J101 (a technical specification prepared by acknowledged experts DNV — don’t ask further), which not only embodied the fearsome formula above, but which turned out to have a major defect in it. And the problems were due to this defect. Hojgaard argued that E-ON could hardly complain where Hojgaard had merely followed instructions: E-ON riposted that that was all very well, but a warranty was a warranty, and this one had been broken.

The Supreme Court confirmed what construction lawyers had always assumed was the case (see decisions such as Cammell Laird v Manganese Bronze [1934] AC 402 and Steel Co of Canada v Willand Management [1966] SCR 746): namely, that the warranty continued to apply even though in a sense inconsistent with the specification and thus impossible to satisfy. And, in the view of us at Maricom, rightly so. If a sophisticated business chooses to promise that something will happen come hell or high water, the fact that it turns out to have promised the impossible should not let it off the hook: that’s what warranties are all about.

The case is not of earth-shattering significance. DNV smartly changed its specifications in late 2009, so the particular issue here won’t affect wind-farm contracts signed after that date. As for the future, lawyers for constructors would do well to advise them to change their wording, making it clear that in so far as customers order structures to a particular specification, any warranties are qualified so as to prevent those customers both eating their cake and having it. If lawyers don’t do this, their PI insurers can expect some embarrassed phone calls; if construction companies don’t follow any such advice then that’s their look-out. But the decision in the Hojgaard case could still have some ramifications in respect of some older structures; to that extent at least it’s worth filing away a note.

Recovery by underwriters: an unconfident sequel to the Atlantik Confidence debacle.

It might look rather churlish for an insurer in paying out on a claim to talk in the same breath about what happens if it should later decide that it wants its money back. Nevertheless it was failure to do this that landed a group of marine underwriters in expensive satellite litigation in Aspen Underwriting Ltd & Ors v Kairos Shipping Ltd & Ors [2017] EWHC 1904 (Comm).

The background to all this was last year’s decision in Kairos Shipping v Enka & Co LLC [2016] EWHC 2412 (Admlty) (noted here for the benefit of our readers), where following the loss of the 27,000 dwt bulker Atlantik Confidence in the Middle East, cargo underwriters successfully broke limitation on the basis that the sinking was a put-up job. The vessel’s hull underwriters, having previously paid out on the orders of her owners’ bank under an insurance assignment provision, now sued the bank to recover their money. The bank, based in the Netherlands, tried to put a spanner in the works by denying the jurisdiction of the English courts under Art.4 of Brussels I Recast, and very nearly succeeded.

The agreement under which the underwriters settled the payout contained an English jurisdiction clause. However it had been signed by the underwriters and the owners, and not by the bank, which had merely given consent for any monies to be paid out to a third party rather than themselves (they were actually paid to the brokers).  Teare J was not prepared to infer that the owners had signed for the bank as principals, or that the bank by agreeing to payment to a third party (the brokers) had demanded payment so as to bring themselves within the doctrine of benefit and burden. The underwriters only won, by the skin of their teeth (and the skill of IISTL stalwart Peter Macdonald-Eggers QC), because of a just plausible alternative argument that some kind of tort of misrepresentation had been committed by or on behalf of  the bank which had had its effects in England, thus enabling the underwriters to invoke Art.7(2) of Brussels I.

Moral (it would seem): all policies should contain a term, rigorously enforced, stating that no monies will be paid out save against a signed receipt specifically submitting to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts in respect of any subsequent dispute respecting the payment.

Hopeful law professors will of course look forward to a decision on the substantive point of recovery (which raises interesting issues of tort law, not to mention restitution should the entire litigation take place here with the agreement of the bank). But one suspects they will do so in vain. It seems likely that this case, like so many others, will end up in the great mass of claims “settled on undisclosed terms.”

A Euro-spanner in the P&I works: direct actions allowed against insurers in EU courts, and no argument allowed.

UK-based P&I clubs will be hopping mad at the decision of the ECJ today in Assens Havn (Judicial cooperation in civil matters) [2017] EUECJ C-368/16, and will doubtless be joining a number of others in saying that Brexit can’t come soon enough. The problem can be summed up thus: as regards events in the EU the Assens Havn decision has blown out of the water their carefully-crafted provisions aimed at ensuring that all proceedings against them in respect of their members’ liabilities are sorted out in England.

The background (see here in this blog) arose out of events ten years ago in the Danish port of Assens. A Danish tug, entered by bareboat charterers with Navigators Management (UK) Ltd, negligently damaged shore installations. The charterers being insolvent, the port sued Navigators in Denmark under a Danish direct action statute. Navigators relied on the English law and jurisdiction clause in their agreement and insisted on being sued in England. The port relied on Arts 10 and 11 of Brussels I (now Recast 12 and 13, there being no relevant difference), saying that in matters of insurance the club could be sued in Denmark as the place where the damage occurred. Navigators said that Art.13.5 (recast Art.15.5) allowed the relevant jurisdiction to be ousted by agreement, including agreement between the insurer and the insured. It was only fair, they argued, that if the port wanted to use a direct action provision to sue them, the port had to take the insurance contract warts and all. The Danish courts sided with Navigators, but referred the matter to the ECJ.

The ECJ was having none of it. True, the plain words of Art.13.5 said that the provisions of Part 3 of the Regulation could be contracted out of in the case of (inter alia)  marine third-party insurance contracts. True also that the Brussels provisions dealing with direct actions against insurers — Arts.8-10 and 11.2 — indubitably formed part of Part 3. Nevertheless, the Court managed to interpret the Regulation as forbidding any contractual ouster of the direct action provisions. This it did on two grounds. One, flimsy enough, was that the direct action provisions contained no specific saving for Art.13.5. The other was that the victim of an accident always had to be protected in its claims on the basis that it was likely to be the weaker party (!). This can best be described as bizarre: not only is the right of contracting-out under Art.13.5 carefully limited to insurance against solidly commercial risks, but the victims are likely to be substantial businesses or authorities and / or their property insurers, none of which one would have thought deserving of any particular solicitude.

Discounting any entirely unworthy thoughts connected with ideas such as sour grapes and Brexit, one can only speculate that the Court regarded the regime that previously protected P&I clubs as a tiresome anomaly, to be removed almost at any cost. In any case, the position now appears clear. In EU jurisdictions that allow direct actions against insurers, P&I clubs will have to resign themselves to being sued wherever bad things happen. Only in the case of other EU jurisdictions, and outside the EU, where they have in addition the useful weapon of the anti-suit injunction available to them (see here) — can they continue as before and benefit from the savings in costs and trouble of one unique English forum.

Sale of goods — no need to prepare to collect something you know you won’t get

A textbook sale of goods decision today from Carr J in Vitol S.A. v Beta Renowable Group S.A. [2017] EWHC 1734 (Comm), which nevertheless has a few lessons for the rest of us. Beta, a Spanish real estate company that had branched out into the biofuels business, agreed to sell commodity traders Vitol 4,500 tonnes of cooking-oil-derived biodiesel fob Bilbao. Vitol had to have a vessel ready to lift it by midnight Friday 1 July and to nominate the relevant vessel by midnight Monday that week.

Things then went wrong. Communications from Beta culminating on Monday afternoon made it clear there wouldn’t be any biodiesel to lift. Vitol let the nomination time pass without doing anything, said on 7 July that they accepted Beta’s repudiation, and sued for loss of profit (including would-be hedging gains — more anon). Beta declined liability. They argued, with more hope than merit, that Vitol had not accepted their repudiation until much later, and had therefore remained bound to nominate a ship on Monday and take steps for delivery; not having done so, they were (said Beta) disabled from complaining of non-delivery.

Carr J held for Vitol, reasoning thus. First, while one could accept repudiation by mere omission, Vitol had not done so by failure to nominate, since this (non) act had not been unequivocal enough. They had therefore on principle remained bound to take steps to lift the oil. Nevertheless, given that it remained abundantly clear that there was nothing to collect, it would be ridiculous to require them to go to the trouble and expense of making idle preparations to collect it.

It followed that Beta were liable for substantial damages for non-delivery, whereupon a further nice point arose. Spurning traditional value less price as old hat, Vitol sought to claim their lost resale margin, plus in addition an alleged profit they would have made on buying in gasoil futures they had sold in order to hedge the transaction. Carr J was having none of it: there was no reason to allow actual resale profits in an ordinary commodity contract, and the futures were essentially a speculation on Vitol’s own account. So Vitol had to be content with market value damages.

Three points for commodity lawyers and others.

(1) It’s good to have confirmation that to enforce a contract you have generally to show merely that you would have been ready willing and able to satisfy any conditions on your right to performance, but for the other side’s repudiation: you don’t have actually to do an entirely futile act where that would serve no purpose.

(2) Damages: courts remain wary in straightforward commodity cases of departing from the time-honoured  value test in ss.50-51 of the Sale of Goods Act.

(3) Vitol will have been kicking themselves for not making it clear, when not nominating a ship, that they were specifically accepting Beta’s repudiation. One email, of negligible cost, would very likely have saved the cost of having the whole matter taken to the High Court. Solicitors for buyers and sellers, verb. sap.