Songa Chemicals AS v Navig8 Chemicals Pool Ltd (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 397 (Comm) (02 March 2018)

Songa Chemicals AS v Navig8 Chemicals Pool Ltd (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 397 (Comm) (02 March 2018)

On the facts, Ruchi took delivery from the vessel as Aavanti's nominated receiver and was acting on behalf of Aavanti within the meaning of the Navig8 and Glencore LOIs. Therefore, the indemnity obligations under those LOIs were triggered. Clause 38 of the voyage charter did not time-bar or otherwise defeat Glencore's liability under the LOIs. There was no real prospect of defending the claims that the LOIs were engaged.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 397 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Songa Chemicals AS; Defendant (case 627), Claimant (case 637): Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc; Defendant (case 637): Glencore Agriculture BV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (summary Judgment Applications) / Judgment Following Hearing of Summary Judgment/interim Relief Applications
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for Songa and Navig8; declaratory relief that LOI indemnity obligations are engaged.
Legal Topics
Letters of Indemnity (loi), Misdelivery of Cargo, Bills of Lading, Indemnity Obligations, Charterparty Interpretation
Commercial Law Shipping Law Letters of Indemnity (loi) Misdelivery of Cargo Bills of Lading Indemnity Obligations Charterparty Interpretation

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

Parties

Songa Chemicals AS

Claimant

Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc

Defendant (case 627), Claimant (case 637)

Glencore Agriculture BV

Defendant (case 637)

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (summary Judgment Applications) / Judgment Following Hearing of Summary Judgment/interim Relief Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delivery to Ruchi constituted delivery to Aavanti under the LOIs
  2. 2 Whether the shipowner believed Ruchi was acting for Aavanti
  3. 3 Whether delivery was deemed correct under LOI clause 4

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts, Ruchi took delivery from the vessel as Aavanti's nominated receiver and was acting on behalf of Aavanti within the meaning of the Navig8 and Glencore LOIs. Therefore, the indemnity obligations under those LOIs were triggered. Clause 38 of the voyage charter did not time-bar or otherwise defeat Glencore's liability under the LOIs. There was no real prospect of defending the claims that the LOIs were engaged.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for Songa and Navig8; declaratory relief that LOI indemnity obligations are engaged.

Orders

  • Final declaratory relief to be settled with Counsel confirming LOI indemnity obligations are engaged.
  • Liberty to apply for further relief or directions regarding funding and defence of SocGen's claim.