Latin American Investments Ltd v Maroil Trading Inc & Anor [2017] EWHC 1254 (Comm) (26 May 2017)

Latin American Investments Ltd v Maroil Trading Inc & Anor [2017] EWHC 1254 (Comm) (26 May 2017)

There is a good arguable case that the claimant, as a shareholder with its own cause of action under the Shareholders Agreement, can seek specific performance or damages requiring the defendants to pay sums to the Joint Venture Companies, and such relief is not barred by the reflective loss principle. The freezing order is available in support of such claims, and the evidence does not preclude a good arguable case for the quantum or negate the risk of dissipation.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1254 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Latin American Investments Limited; Defendant/respondent/part 20 Defendant: Maroil Trading Inc; Defendant/respondent: Sea Power Shipping Corporation; Part 20 Claimant/additional Party/claimant: Oceanic Trans Shipping Est
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (freezing Order) / Return Date Hearing on Continuation of Freezing Order
Outcome
Freezing Order continued until trial; no order on security for costs application at this stage.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Reflective Loss Principle, Shareholder Remedies, Specific Performance, Security for Costs
Commercial Law Company Law Equity Freezing Injunctions Reflective Loss Principle Shareholder Remedies Specific Performance Security for Costs

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Latin American Investments Limited

Claimant

Maroil Trading Inc

Defendant/respondent/part 20 Defendant

Sea Power Shipping Corporation

Defendant/respondent

Oceanic Trans Shipping Est

Part 20 Claimant/additional Party/claimant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (freezing Order) / Return Date Hearing on Continuation of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's claim is barred by the reflective loss principle
  2. 2 Whether there is a good arguable case for the quantum of the claim ($23m)
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation justifying a freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

There is a good arguable case that the claimant, as a shareholder with its own cause of action under the Shareholders Agreement, can seek specific performance or damages requiring the defendants to pay sums to the Joint Venture Companies, and such relief is not barred by the reflective loss principle. The freezing order is available in support of such claims, and the evidence does not preclude a good arguable case for the quantum or negate the risk of dissipation.

Court Disposition

Freezing Order continued until trial; no order on security for costs application at this stage.

Orders

  • The Freezing Order granted on 9 May 2017 is continued until trial.
  • No order made on the defendants' application for security for costs; defendants may pursue it later.