INEOS Manufacturing Scotland Ltd. v Grangemouth Chp Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 163 (Comm) (11 February 2011)
EU emissions allowances issued under the Regulations do not fall within the definition of 'CO2 Emissions Credits' in the ESA; they are not credits but permits/allowances, and the commercial context and contractual balance indicate the parties did not intend clause 3.4 to encompass such allowances. Fortum O&M, not GCHPL, was the operator of the CHP Plant and the legitimate holder of the GGE Permit; allowances did not accrue to GCHPL. No breach or implied obligation arose.
- Citation
- [2011] EWHC 163 (Comm)
- Parties
- Claimant: INEOS Manufacturing Scotland Limited; First Defendant: Grangemouth CHP Limited; Second Defendant: Fortum O&M (UK) Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 11 February 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Court Claim / Judgment After Trial
- Outcome
- Claim dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Interpretation of Contractual Terms, Emissions Trading, Allocation of Carbon Allowances, Obligations Under Supply Agreements
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
INEOS Manufacturing Scotland Limited
Claimant
Grangemouth CHP Limited
First Defendant
Fortum O&M (UK) Limited
Second Defendant
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Judgment After Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether EU emissions allowances fall within the contractual definition of 'CO2 Emissions Credits' under the Electricity Supply Agreement
- 2 Whether such allowances 'accrued' to Grangemouth CHP Limited
- 3 Whether Grangemouth CHP Limited was obliged to ensure IMSL obtained the benefit of allowances
Ratio Decidendi
EU emissions allowances issued under the Regulations do not fall within the definition of 'CO2 Emissions Credits' in the ESA; they are not credits but permits/allowances, and the commercial context and contractual balance indicate the parties did not intend clause 3.4 to encompass such allowances. Fortum O&M, not GCHPL, was the operator of the CHP Plant and the legitimate holder of the GGE Permit; allowances did not accrue to GCHPL. No breach or implied obligation arose.
Court Disposition
Claim dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment