Taurus Petroleum Ltd v State Oil Marketing Company of the Ministry of Oil, Republic of Iraq

Taurus Petroleum Ltd v State Oil Marketing Company of the Ministry of Oil, Republic of Iraq

The ITPDOs and receivership orders must be set aside because the promise to pay under the letters of credit was made to both SOMO and the Central Bank of Iraq, making the debt not solely due to SOMO and thus not attachable under CPR Part 72. Additionally, the property interest of the Central Bank of Iraq triggers immunity under s.14(4) of the State Immunity Act 1978, and the debts were not within the free disposition of SOMO.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Taurus Petroleum Limited; Defendant/applicant: State Oil Marketing Company of the Ministry of Oil, Republic of Iraq
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Enforcement / Arbitration Award Enforcement / Application to Set Aside Interim Third Party Debt Orders and Receivership Order
Outcome
Application granted; ITPDOs and receivership orders set aside/discharged.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Third Party Debt Orders, Letters of Credit, State Immunity, Situs of Debts, Separate Legal Entity, Receivership, Attachment of Debts
Commercial Law Arbitration Banking Law Conflict of Laws State Immunity Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Third Party Debt Orders Letters of Credit +4 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Taurus Petroleum Limited

Claimant/respondent

State Oil Marketing Company of the Ministry of Oil, Republic of Iraq

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Enforcement / Arbitration Award Enforcement / Application to Set Aside Interim Third Party Debt Orders and Receivership Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim third party debt orders (ITPDOs) and receivership orders against Crédit Agricole should be set aside on grounds including state immunity, situs of debt, and the nature of the promise under the letters of credit
  2. 2 Whether SOMO or the Central Bank of Iraq (CBI) is the promisee under the letters of credit and whether the debt is attachable
  3. 3 Whether the property is immune from execution under the State Immunity Act 1978, including s.13(2)(b) and s.14(4)

Ratio Decidendi

The ITPDOs and receivership orders must be set aside because the promise to pay under the letters of credit was made to both SOMO and the Central Bank of Iraq, making the debt not solely due to SOMO and thus not attachable under CPR Part 72. Additionally, the property interest of the Central Bank of Iraq triggers immunity under s.14(4) of the State Immunity Act 1978, and the debts were not within the free disposition of SOMO.

Court Disposition

Application granted; ITPDOs and receivership orders set aside/discharged.

Orders

  • The interim third party debt orders made against Crédit Agricole are discharged.
  • The receivership orders made on 11 and 12 March 2013 are discharged.