Ceto Shipping Corporation v Savory Shipping Inc

Security for costs will not stifle Ceto's claim as evidence shows funds can be raised when needed; however, security will not be ordered for the mirror counterclaim due to the Crabtree principle and Savory's refusal to give a Dumrul undertaking. Security will be ordered only for the damages claim for breach of Charter.

Parties: Claimant/charterers: Ceto Shipping Corporation; Defendant/owners: Savory Shipping Inc
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 11 October 2024
Procedural Posture: Commercial Court Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
Outcome: Application for security for costs granted in part
Legal Topics: Security for Costs, Charterparty Disputes, Ownership of Vessel, Impecuniosity, Counterclaim Principles

Commercial Law Maritime Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Charterparty Disputes Ownership of Vessel Impecuniosity Counterclaim Principles

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7

Parties

Ceto Shipping Corporation

Claimant/charterers

Savory Shipping Inc

Defendant/owners

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against Ceto Shipping Corporation
2 Whether an order for security would stifle a genuine claim
3 Whether Savory Shipping Inc's counterclaim precludes an order for security

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted in part

Orders

Security for costs ordered only in respect of the damages claim for breach of Charter; sum to be determined by the court.
Payment to be staged; if not paid, only the damages claim will be stayed.