Wolff v Trinity Logistics Usa Inc

Wolff v Trinity Logistics Usa Inc

Mr Wolff was liable for procuring breach of contract because he had actual knowledge or was recklessly indifferent to the existence and terms of the contract prohibiting early release of goods, and his conduct constituted procurement or inducement of the breach. The indemnity order was too broad and was replaced with a declaration that TUSA may recover damages from Mr Wolff for reasonable payments to suppliers. Permission to cross-appeal on dismissed claims was required and granted only for procuring conversion, not conspiracy.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Michael Fielding Wolff; Respondent/claimant: Trinity Logistics USA Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (commercial Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in relation to liability for procuring breach of contract; allowed in part to vary the form of relief.
Legal Topics
Procuring Breach of Contract, Conversion, Conspiracy, Carriage of Goods, Bills of Lading, Indemnity, Knowledge Requirement in Tort, Procedural Law (respondent's Notice)
Commercial Law Tort Law Contract Law Procuring Breach of Contract Conversion Conspiracy Carriage of Goods Bills of Lading +3 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Fielding Wolff

Appellant/defendant

Trinity Logistics USA Inc

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (commercial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Wolff procured breach of contract between Trinity Europe and Trinity Bangladesh/TUSA
  2. 2 Whether Mr Wolff had the requisite knowledge for liability in procuring breach of contract
  3. 3 Whether Mr Wolff was liable for procuring conversion or conspiracy

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Wolff was liable for procuring breach of contract because he had actual knowledge or was recklessly indifferent to the existence and terms of the contract prohibiting early release of goods, and his conduct constituted procurement or inducement of the breach. The indemnity order was too broad and was replaced with a declaration that TUSA may recover damages from Mr Wolff for reasonable payments to suppliers. Permission to cross-appeal on dismissed claims was required and granted only for procuring conversion, not conspiracy.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in relation to liability for procuring breach of contract; allowed in part to vary the form of relief.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the deputy judge’s order discharged and replaced with a declaration that TUSA may recover damages from Mr Wolff for reasonable payments to suppliers up to specified limits.
  • Permission required and granted for respondent to advance claim for procuring conversion; refused for conspiracy.