Pan Oceanic Chartering Inc v UNIPEC UK Co Ltd & Anor

Pan Oceanic Chartering Inc v UNIPEC UK Co Ltd & Anor

The claims fail because English law, not New Jersey law, applies to the implied in law promise claim, and the doctrine does not extend to shipping brokerage. The tortious interference claim fails as there was no interference with an established contractual right or breach of the brokerage agreement. Even if New Jersey law applied, the facts do not support extension of the implied in law promise doctrine beyond real estate, and no actionable interference or malice by UUK or UHK was established.

Parties
Claimant: Pan Oceanic Chartering Inc; First Defendant: UNIPEC UK Co. Limited; Second Defendant: UNIPEC Asia Co. Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied in Law Promise, Tortious Interference With Contractual Relations, Choice of Law, Brokerage Agreements, Damages
Contract Law Tort Law Private International Law Implied in Law Promise Tortious Interference With Contractual Relations Choice of Law Brokerage Agreements Damages

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pan Oceanic Chartering Inc

Claimant

UNIPEC UK Co. Limited

First Defendant

UNIPEC Asia Co. Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether New Jersey law or English law applies to the implied in law promise claim
  2. 2 Whether an enforceable brokerage agreement existed between TI and POC
  3. 3 Whether UUK and UHK tortiously interfered with the brokerage agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The claims fail because English law, not New Jersey law, applies to the implied in law promise claim, and the doctrine does not extend to shipping brokerage. The tortious interference claim fails as there was no interference with an established contractual right or breach of the brokerage agreement. Even if New Jersey law applied, the facts do not support extension of the implied in law promise doctrine beyond real estate, and no actionable interference or malice by UUK or UHK was established.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • POC's claims against UUK and UHK are dismissed.
  • No damages awarded to POC.