Wolff v Trinity Logistics Usa Inc [2018] EWCA Civ 2765 (12 December 2018)

Wolff v Trinity Logistics Usa Inc [2018] EWCA Civ 2765 (12 December 2018)

Mr Wolff was liable for procuring breaches of contract by encouraging and facilitating the release of goods without proper documentation, with actual or recklessly indifferent knowledge of the contractual prohibition on such releases. The acts of procurement continued after the relevant contract came into existence, and his conduct constituted sufficient encouragement and intent. The indemnity order was too broad and should be replaced by a declaration limiting recovery to reasonable payments made by TUSA to suppliers, up to specified limits.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Civ 2765
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Michael Fielding Wolff; Respondent/claimant: Trinity Logistics USA Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (commercial Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in relation to liability for procuring breach of contract; indemnity order varied to a declaration; cross-appeal on conversion claim permitted but unnecessary to decide; cross-appeal on conspiracy refused.
Legal Topics
Carriage of Goods, Procurement of Breach of Contract, Conversion, Deceit, Conspiracy, Agency, Bills of Lading, Indemnity Orders
Commercial Law Tort Law Contract Law Carriage of Goods Procurement of Breach of Contract Conversion Deceit Conspiracy +3 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Fielding Wolff

Appellant/defendant

Trinity Logistics USA Inc

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (commercial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Wolff procured or induced breaches of contract between Trinity Europe and Trinity Bangladesh/TUSA
  2. 2 Whether Mr Wolff had the requisite knowledge and intent for the tort of procuring breach of contract
  3. 3 Whether Mr Wolff was liable for procuring conversion, deceit, or conspiracy

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Wolff was liable for procuring breaches of contract by encouraging and facilitating the release of goods without proper documentation, with actual or recklessly indifferent knowledge of the contractual prohibition on such releases. The acts of procurement continued after the relevant contract came into existence, and his conduct constituted sufficient encouragement and intent. The indemnity order was too broad and should be replaced by a declaration limiting recovery to reasonable payments made by TUSA to suppliers, up to specified limits.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in relation to liability for procuring breach of contract; indemnity order varied to a declaration; cross-appeal on conversion claim permitted but unnecessary to decide; cross-appeal on conspiracy refused.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the deputy judge's order discharged and replaced with a declaration: in the event that TUSA reasonably pays claims made by the suppliers of the goods, TUSA is entitled to recover from Mr Wolff damages in the amount of such payments up to the limit for each supplier as specified in the annex.
  • Permission to cross-appeal on procuring conversion granted but not decided; permission on conspiracy refused.