James Kemball Ltd v "K" Line (Europe) Ltd & Anor [2019] EWHC 3422 (Comm) (13 December 2019)

James Kemball Ltd v "K" Line (Europe) Ltd & Anor [2019] EWHC 3422 (Comm) (13 December 2019)

The court found that the claim against the Second Defendant for inducement of breach of contract was arguable and not fanciful, given the close relationship between the Defendants and the pleaded facts. Although there was a failure to give full and frank disclosure regarding the legal basis and likely defences, this...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3422 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: James Kemball Limited; First Defendant: K Line (Europe) Limited; Second Defendant: Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application to Set Aside Permission for Service Out of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application to set aside permission for service out dismissed
Legal Topics
Inducement of Breach of Contract, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Full and Frank Disclosure
Commercial Law Tort Law Inducement of Breach of Contract Service Out of Jurisdiction Full and Frank Disclosure

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Kemball Limited

Claimant

K Line (Europe) Limited

First Defendant

Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Application to Set Aside Permission for Service Out of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against the Second Defendant for inducing breach of contract has reasonable prospects of success
  2. 2 Whether there was a failure to give full and frank disclosure in the ex parte application

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claim against the Second Defendant for inducement of breach of contract was arguable and not fanciful, given the close relationship between the Defendants and the pleaded facts. Although there was a failure to give full and frank disclosure regarding the legal basis and likely defences, this did not justify setting aside permission for service out, but warranted an indemnity costs order.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside permission for service out dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to pay costs of the application on the indemnity basis