Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD v Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Company S.A. & Anor

Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD v Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Company S.A. & Anor

Okta could not rely on the force majeure clause because the government requests were instigated and controlled by Okta and thus not beyond its control. The 1998 contract with Moil-Coal was enforceable as the parties had operated it and a mechanism for determining price existed.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Force Majeure, Contractual Interpretation, Breach of Contract, Certainty of Terms
Contract Law Commercial Law Force Majeure Contractual 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

Civil Appeal / 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 government requests were instigated and controlled by Okta and thus not beyond its control. The 1998 contract with Moil-Coal was enforceable as the parties had operated it and a mechanism for determining price existed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs in case number A3/2002/2628 and interim payment of £82,500 ordered.
  • Appeal dismissed with costs in case number A3/2002/2626 and interim payment of £27,100 ordered.