Trafigura Maritime Logistics PTE Ltd v Clearlake Shipping PTE Ltd

Trafigura Maritime Logistics PTE Ltd v Clearlake Shipping PTE Ltd

The court declined to include general wording in the order, set the deadline for payment into court as 11 May 2020 for both Clearlake and Petrobras, adopted Trafigura's form of the bank guarantee proviso, refused staggered payment obligations, and apportioned costs with reductions reflecting the issues lost by Trafigura. Costs were ordered on the standard basis, not indemnity, as Clearlake's conduct was not out of the norm. Petrobras was ordered to pay Clearlake's costs and liabilities to Trafigura for the ex parte stage, but only 50% of costs post-15 April.

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 Applications for Interim Mandatory Relief and Costs / Post Judgment Hearing on Form of Order and Costs
Outcome
Order on form of relief and costs issued; interim mandatory relief confirmed; costs apportioned as specified.
Legal Topics
Interim Mandatory Injunctions, Security for Release of Vessel, Costs Orders, Contractual Indemnity
Commercial Law Maritime Law Civil Procedure Interim Mandatory Injunctions Security for Release of Vessel Costs Orders Contractual Indemnity

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 4 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 Applications for Interim Mandatory Relief and Costs / Post Judgment Hearing on Form of Order and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to include general wording in the order for provision of security
  2. 2 Determination of specific dates for compliance with payment into court
  3. 3 Formulation of proviso regarding provision of bank guarantee

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to include general wording in the order, set the deadline for payment into court as 11 May 2020 for both Clearlake and Petrobras, adopted Trafigura's form of the bank guarantee proviso, refused staggered payment obligations, and apportioned costs with reductions reflecting the issues lost by Trafigura. Costs were ordered on the standard basis, not indemnity, as Clearlake's conduct was not out of the norm. Petrobras was ordered to pay Clearlake's costs and liabilities to Trafigura for the ex parte stage, but only 50% of costs post-15 April.

Court Disposition

Order on form of relief and costs issued; interim mandatory relief confirmed; costs apportioned as specified.

Orders

  • Clearlake and Petrobras to pay US$76 million into Singapore court by 11 May 2020 unless a bank guarantee acceptable to Natixis is provided.
  • No staggered payment obligations; both must comply by the same date.