Su (aka Hsin Chi Su, Su Hsin Chi And Nobu Morimoto) v Clarksons Platou Futures Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 337 (Comm) (24 February 2017)

Su (aka Hsin Chi Su, Su Hsin Chi And Nobu Morimoto) v Clarksons Platou Futures Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 337 (Comm) (24 February 2017)

The claims in contract and negligence accrued in July 2008 when Mr. Su was bound personally to the FFA deal and suffered damage. Mr. Su had the requisite knowledge for section 14A purposes by July 2012 at the latest. The claims are therefore time barred and have no real prospect of success.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 337 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mr Nobu Su (also known as Hsin Chi Su, Su Hsin Chi and Nobu Morimoto); First Defendant/applicant: Clarksons Platou Futures Limited; Second Defendant/applicant: Mr Vassilis Karakoulakis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim for Damages (contract and Negligence) / Application for Summary Judgment by Defendants
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for Defendants; Claimant's claims dismissed as time barred.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Breach of Warranty of Authority, Negligence, Summary Judgment
Commercial Law Contract Law Tort Law Limitation of Actions Breach of Warranty of Authority Negligence Summary Judgment

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

Parties

Mr Nobu Su (also known as Hsin Chi Su, Su Hsin Chi and Nobu Morimoto)

Claimant/respondent

Clarksons Platou Futures Limited

First Defendant/applicant

Mr Vassilis Karakoulakis

Second Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim for Damages (contract and Negligence) / Application for Summary Judgment by Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's claims in contract and negligence are time barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 When the cause of action accrued for the purposes of limitation
  3. 3 Whether section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 extends the limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The claims in contract and negligence accrued in July 2008 when Mr. Su was bound personally to the FFA deal and suffered damage. Mr. Su had the requisite knowledge for section 14A purposes by July 2012 at the latest. The claims are therefore time barred and have no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for Defendants; Claimant's claims dismissed as time barred.

Orders

  • Summary judgment in favour of the Defendants
  • Claimant's claims dismissed