Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL & Anor

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL & Anor

The Court of Appeal held that the agreement entitled Mr Masri to share in operating cost recoveries made by CCC, as the basic principle of the agreement was that he would have a 1% overall interest in the concession, and any significant departure from this symmetry would require explicit provision. The absence of an express exclusion could not justify denying him a share in recoveries for costs he was obliged to bear.

Parties
Claimant Appellant: Munib Masri; Defendant Respondent: Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL; Defendant Respondent: Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company SAL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; permission to appeal granted.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Commercial Contracts, Profit Sharing Agreements, Cost Recovery in Oil Concessions
Contract Law Commercial Law Oil and Gas Law Interpretation of Commercial Contracts Profit Sharing Agreements Cost Recovery in Oil Concessions

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Munib Masri

Claimant Appellant

Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL

Defendant Respondent

Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company SAL

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Masri is entitled to share in operating cost recoveries made by CCC under the 1992 agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the agreement entitled Mr Masri to share in operating cost recoveries made by CCC, as the basic principle of the agreement was that he would have a 1% overall interest in the concession, and any significant departure from this symmetry would require explicit provision. The absence of an express exclusion could not justify denying him a share in recoveries for costs he was obliged to bear.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; permission to appeal granted.

Orders

  • Interim payment on account of costs of £85,000 ordered.
  • Permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused.