OMV Petrom SA v Glencore International AG (Rev 1) [2016] EWCA Civ 778 (21 July 2016)

OMV Petrom SA v Glencore International AG (Rev 1) [2016] EWCA Civ 778 (21 July 2016)

The proper measure of damages for deceit is the difference between the price paid and the market value of the property at the date of acquisition, including a discount for risk and uncertainty inherent in purchasing bespoke blends. Comparative yield is not the correct measure, and subsequent events do not affect the value at acquisition. The valuation approach adopted by the judge was correct.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 778
Parties
Claimant/respondent: OMV Petrom SA; Defendant/appellant: Glencore International AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Measure of Damages in Deceit, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Assessment of Market Value, Double Actionability, Delict Under Romanian Law
Commercial Law Tort Law Private International Law Measure of Damages in Deceit Fraudulent Misrepresentation Assessment of Market Value Double Actionability Delict Under Romanian Law

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OMV Petrom SA

Claimant/respondent

Glencore International AG

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the proper measure of damages for deceit in the supply of crude oil?
  2. 2 Should damages be assessed by the difference between price paid and market value at acquisition, or by comparative yield?
  3. 3 Is a discount for risk and uncertainty appropriate in market value assessment?

Ratio Decidendi

The proper measure of damages for deceit is the difference between the price paid and the market value of the property at the date of acquisition, including a discount for risk and uncertainty inherent in purchasing bespoke blends. Comparative yield is not the correct measure, and subsequent events do not affect the value at acquisition. The valuation approach adopted by the judge was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Damages to Petrom confirmed at $40,071,913
  • No adjustment for subsequent events