Anron Bunkering DMCC v Glencore Energy UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 295 (Comm) (14 February 2023)

Anron Bunkering DMCC v Glencore Energy UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 295 (Comm) (14 February 2023)

The implied terms contended for by the claimant are not to be implied into the contracts as they are not necessary for business efficacy, not obvious, and the contracts are detailed commercial agreements. The claims for unjust enrichment are time-barred as the cause of action accrued by 4 May 2016 and the claim was issued more than six years later. There is no statutory acknowledgment of debt. The adjournment application was refused as the claimant failed to justify the lack of legal representation and the delay would be contrary to the overriding objective.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 295 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Anron Bunkering DMCC; Defendant / Applicant: Glencore Energy UK Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim for Contractual Debt And/or Unjust Enrichment / Summary Judgment Application by Defendant; Alternative Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Claim summarily dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Unjust Enrichment, Limitation of Actions, Summary Judgment, Adjournment of Hearings
Contract Law Civil Procedure Implied Terms Unjust Enrichment Limitation of Actions Summary Judgment Adjournment of Hearings

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anron Bunkering DMCC

Claimant / Respondent

Glencore Energy UK Ltd

Defendant / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim for Contractual Debt And/or Unjust Enrichment / Summary Judgment Application by Defendant; Alternative Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pleaded implied terms should be implied into the contracts
  2. 2 Whether the claim for money had and received (unjust enrichment) is time-barred
  3. 3 Whether the adjournment application should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The implied terms contended for by the claimant are not to be implied into the contracts as they are not necessary for business efficacy, not obvious, and the contracts are detailed commercial agreements. The claims for unjust enrichment are time-barred as the cause of action accrued by 4 May 2016 and the claim was issued more than six years later. There is no statutory acknowledgment of debt. The adjournment application was refused as the claimant failed to justify the lack of legal representation and the delay would be contrary to the overriding objective.

Court Disposition

Claim summarily dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed with summary judgment for the defendant
  • No order on the alternative application for security for costs