Trafigura Maritime Logistics PTE Ltd v Clearlake Shipping PTE Ltd [2020] EWHC 1073 (Comm) (06 May 2020)

Trafigura Maritime Logistics PTE Ltd v Clearlake Shipping PTE Ltd [2020] EWHC 1073 (Comm) (06 May 2020)

The order should not include general wording where specific relief is granted, as this would cause confusion. Both Clearlake and Petrobras must comply with the order by the same date, with no staggered obligations, as Clearlake's contractual obligation to Trafigura is not contingent on Petrobras' actions. Costs are to be assessed on the standard basis, with reductions reflecting issues lost, and Petrobras is liable for Clearlake's costs up to 15 April and 50% thereafter, as well as Clearlake's liability to Trafigura for costs of the ex parte application, as this is just in the circumstances.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1073 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Trafigura Maritime Logistics Pte Ltd; Defendant (in First Action) / Claimant (in Second Action): Clearlake Shipping Pte Ltd; Claimant (in Second Action): Clearlake Chartering USA Inc.; Defendant (in Second Action): Petroleo Brasileiro S. A. (Petrobras)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (applications for Interim Mandatory Relief) / Post Judgment Hearing on Form of Order and Costs
Outcome
Order made as per judgment; costs awarded as specified; payments on account ordered.
Legal Topics
Interim Mandatory Injunctions, Security for Release of Vessel, Costs Orders, Charterparty Indemnities
Commercial Law Maritime Law Civil Procedure Interim Mandatory Injunctions Security for Release of Vessel Costs Orders Charterparty Indemnities

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trafigura Maritime Logistics Pte Ltd

Claimant

Clearlake Shipping Pte Ltd

Defendant (in First Action) / Claimant (in Second Action)

Clearlake Chartering USA Inc.

Claimant (in Second Action)

Petroleo Brasileiro S. A. (Petrobras)

Defendant (in Second Action)

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (applications for Interim Mandatory Relief) / Post Judgment Hearing on Form of Order and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order should include general wording in addition to specific relief
  2. 2 Calculation of working days for compliance with order
  3. 3 Form of proviso regarding bank guarantee

Ratio Decidendi

The order should not include general wording where specific relief is granted, as this would cause confusion. Both Clearlake and Petrobras must comply with the order by the same date, with no staggered obligations, as Clearlake's contractual obligation to Trafigura is not contingent on Petrobras' actions. Costs are to be assessed on the standard basis, with reductions reflecting issues lost, and Petrobras is liable for Clearlake's costs up to 15 April and 50% thereafter, as well as Clearlake's liability to Trafigura for costs of the ex parte application, as this is just in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Order made as per judgment; costs awarded as specified; payments on account ordered.

Orders

  • Clearlake and Petrobras to pay security into Singapore court by 11 May 2020 unless acceptable bank guarantee provided.
  • No staggered obligations; both must comply by same date.