James Kemball Ltd v "K" Line (Europe) Ltd & Anor

James Kemball Ltd v "K" Line (Europe) Ltd & Anor

The court held that the claim against the Second Defendant for inducing breach of contract had a real, as opposed to fanciful, prospect of success, as the pleaded facts and the relationship between the Defendants made it arguable that there was encouragement or inducement. However, the Claimant failed to give full and frank disclosure on the ex parte application by not addressing the legal difficulties and likely defences, but this did not warrant setting aside the permission for service out; instead, costs were awarded on an indemnity basis.

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; costs awarded against Claimant on indemnity basis for failure to give full and frank disclosure.
Legal Topics
Inducement of Breach of Contract, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Full and Frank Disclosure, Accessory Liability in Tort
Commercial Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Inducement of Breach of Contract Service Out of Jurisdiction Full and Frank Disclosure Accessory Liability in Tort

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 3 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 a real prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether there was a failure to give full and frank disclosure on the ex parte application for service out

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claim against the Second Defendant for inducing breach of contract had a real, as opposed to fanciful, prospect of success, as the pleaded facts and the relationship between the Defendants made it arguable that there was encouragement or inducement. However, the Claimant failed to give full and frank disclosure on the ex parte application by not addressing the legal difficulties and likely defences, but this did not warrant setting aside the permission for service out; instead, costs were awarded on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside permission for service out dismissed; costs awarded against Claimant on indemnity basis for failure to give full and frank disclosure.

Orders

  • Permission for service out of jurisdiction stands.
  • Claimant to pay costs of the application on the indemnity basis.