Huktra (UK) Ltd. v Huktra NV [2003] EWCA Civ 607 (29 January 2003)

Huktra (UK) Ltd. v Huktra NV [2003] EWCA Civ 607 (29 January 2003)

The judge found that, although no definitive compromise agreement was reached in December 1995 as pleaded, there was a practice of reaching mutual agreements at six-monthly intervals (year ends) between 1993 and June 1995, resulting in accord and satisfaction of claims and cross-claims. These agreements precluded resurrection of claims for hire charges or under-payment for the relevant periods.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 607
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Huktra (UK) Limited; Defendant/appellant: Huktra NV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judge's finding of six-monthly compromise agreements set aside.
Legal Topics
Oral Agreements, Accord and Satisfaction, Compromise Agreements, Accounting Practices, Hire Charges, Profit Sharing, Detention of Goods
Contract Law Commercial Law Oral Agreements Accord and Satisfaction Compromise Agreements Accounting Practices Hire Charges Profit Sharing +1 more

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

Parties

Huktra (UK) Limited

Claimant/respondent

Huktra NV

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a compromise agreement was reached between the parties in December 1995 or at six-monthly intervals in 1993-1995
  2. 2 Whether cleaning costs were to be charged at cost or commercial rates
  3. 3 Whether claims and cross-claims were settled by mutual agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found that, although no definitive compromise agreement was reached in December 1995 as pleaded, there was a practice of reaching mutual agreements at six-monthly intervals (year ends) between 1993 and June 1995, resulting in accord and satisfaction of claims and cross-claims. These agreements precluded resurrection of claims for hire charges or under-payment for the relevant periods.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judge's finding of six-monthly compromise agreements set aside.

Orders

  • The findings of six-monthly compromise agreements are overturned.
  • The matter is remitted for reconsideration of the pleaded December 1995 compromise agreement.