Perfect Marine Ltd v Sodrugestvo Turkey Tarim Tasimacilik Ithalat Ihracat Ticaret AS & Ors [2025] EWHC 1940 (Comm) (25 July 2025)

Perfect Marine Ltd v Sodrugestvo Turkey Tarim Tasimacilik Ithalat Ihracat Ticaret AS & Ors [2025] EWHC 1940 (Comm) (25 July 2025)

The applications for summary judgment and strike out are dismissed. The time bar issue under Article III Rule 6 is arguable and should be determined at trial, not summarily. The Misrepresentation Claims are sufficiently pleaded for trial and issues of reliance and fact are not suitable for summary determination. There is no procedural basis to strike out the claims at this stage.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1940 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Perfect Marine Ltd.; First Defendant: Sodrugestvo Turkey Tarim Tasimacilik Ithalat Ihracat Ticaret A. S.; Second Defendant: Allseeds Switzerland S. A.; Third Defendant: Nela Gida Sanayi Ticaret Ltd. Sti
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Cargo Claim / Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment and Strike Out of Counterclaims
Outcome
Applications for summary judgment and strike out dismissed.
Legal Topics
Bills of Lading, Hague Rules, Time Bar, Misrepresentation, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Cargo Claims
Commercial Law Shipping Law Bills of Lading Hague Rules Time Bar Misrepresentation Summary Judgment Strike Out +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perfect Marine Ltd.

Claimant

Sodrugestvo Turkey Tarim Tasimacilik Ithalat Ihracat Ticaret A. S.

First Defendant

Allseeds Switzerland S. A.

Second Defendant

Nela Gida Sanayi Ticaret Ltd. Sti

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Cargo Claim / Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment and Strike Out of Counterclaims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants' amended counterclaims (Shortage Claim and Misrepresentation Claims) are time-barred under Article III Rule 6 of the Hague Rules
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants' Misrepresentation Claims are sufficiently pleaded and have a realistic prospect of success, particularly as to reliance
  3. 3 Whether the Misrepresentation Claims should be struck out for procedural deficiencies

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for summary judgment and strike out are dismissed. The time bar issue under Article III Rule 6 is arguable and should be determined at trial, not summarily. The Misrepresentation Claims are sufficiently pleaded for trial and issues of reliance and fact are not suitable for summary determination. There is no procedural basis to strike out the claims at this stage.

Court Disposition

Applications for summary judgment and strike out dismissed.

Orders

  • The Defendants' Shortage Claim and Misrepresentation Claims proceed to trial.
  • No summary judgment or strike out granted on any ground.