Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD v Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Company S.A. & Anor [2003] EWCA Civ 1031 (17 July 2003)

Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD v Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Company S.A. & Anor [2003] EWCA Civ 1031 (17 July 2003)

Okta could not rely on the force majeure clause because the governmental requests excusing performance were instigated by Okta and thus not beyond its control. The 1998 contract with Moil-Coal was enforceable as the parties had agreed a mechanism for determining price and had performed the contract in practice.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1031
Parties
Appellant/defendant: OKTA Crude Oil Refinery A. D.; Respondent/claimant: Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Company S. A.; Respondent/claimant: Moil-Coal Trading Company Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Force Majeure, Contract Interpretation, Breach of Contract, Certainty of Terms
Contract Law Commercial Law Force Majeure Contract Interpretation Breach of Contract Certainty of Terms

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OKTA Crude Oil Refinery A. D.

Appellant/defendant

Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Company S. A.

Respondent/claimant

Moil-Coal Trading Company Ltd.

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Okta could rely on the force majeure clause to excuse non-performance of the 1993 contract with Jetoil.
  2. 2 Whether the 1998 oil supply contract with Moil-Coal was too vague to be enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi

Okta could not rely on the force majeure clause because the governmental requests excusing performance were instigated by Okta and thus not beyond its control. The 1998 contract with Moil-Coal was enforceable as the parties had agreed a mechanism for determining price and had performed the contract in practice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs in case A3/2002/2628 and interim payment of £82,500; stay of execution to lapse forthwith.
  • Appeal dismissed with costs in case A3/2002/2626 and interim payment of £27,100.