Comdel Commodities Ltd v Siporex Trade SA [1997] EWCA Civ 925 (5th February, 1997)

Comdel Commodities Ltd v Siporex Trade SA [1997] EWCA Civ 925 (5th February, 1997)

The Court of Appeal held that, notwithstanding two errors in the judge's reasoning (misconstruing correspondence as freezing time and relying on unsubstantiated assertions about Siporex's finances), the 19-month unexplained delay by Comdel in prosecuting the claim, especially at a late stage in protracted litigation, made it inappropriate for the Mareva injunction to continue. The duty to proceed expeditiously is particularly strict where a Mareva injunction is in place, and the delay was sufficient to justify discharge of the injunction.

Citation
[1997] EWCA Civ 925
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Comdel Commodities Limited; Defendant/respondent: Siporex Trade SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Delay in Prosecution, Extension of Time for Arbitration, Performance Bonds, Discharge of Injunctions
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Arbitration Mareva Injunction Delay in Prosecution Extension of Time for Arbitration Performance Bonds Discharge of Injunctions

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

Parties

Comdel Commodities Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Siporex Trade SA

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Mareva injunction should be discharged due to delay by the claimant in prosecuting the claim
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in considering the effect of delay and the financial impact on the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the judge wrongly construed correspondence as freezing the position as at January 1994 for the purpose of the application to discharge the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that, notwithstanding two errors in the judge's reasoning (misconstruing correspondence as freezing time and relying on unsubstantiated assertions about Siporex's finances), the 19-month unexplained delay by Comdel in prosecuting the claim, especially at a late stage in protracted litigation, made it inappropriate for the Mareva injunction to continue. The duty to proceed expeditiously is particularly strict where a Mareva injunction is in place, and the delay was sufficient to justify discharge of the injunction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of Mr Justice Colman dated 24 November 1995 affirmed
  • Plaintiff to pay Defendant's costs of the appeal and below, to be taxed if not agreed