Stocznia Gdanska S.A. v Latvian Shipping Company & Ors [2001] EWHC 500 (Comm) (01 February 2001)

Stocznia Gdanska S.A. v Latvian Shipping Company & Ors [2001] EWHC 500 (Comm) (01 February 2001)

The Yard was entitled to rescind the contracts for non-payment but its rights to damages were governed strictly by the contract terms, not common law. Claims for inducement of breach could proceed against Latco and Mr Henriksen, but not for recovery of instalments after rescission. Jurisdiction was established for tort claims but not for contract claims against Latco.

Citation
[2001] EWHC 500 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Stocznia Gdanska S. A.; First Defendant: Latvian Shipping Company; Second Defendant: Latreefers Inc; Third Defendant: Erik Henriksen; Fourth Defendant: CFM Finance Limited; Fifth Defendant: Latmar Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract and Tort Claims / Final Judgment at High Court, Following Prior Summary Judgments, Appeals, and House of Lords Proceedings
Outcome
Claim for recovery of instalments dismissed; damages to be assessed under contract; claims for inducement of breach allowed to proceed
Legal Topics
Shipbuilding Contracts, Breach of Contract, Inducement of Breach, Damages Assessment, Jurisdiction, Rescission, Summary Judgment
Commercial Law Contract Law Tort Law Shipbuilding Contracts Breach of Contract Inducement of Breach Damages Assessment Jurisdiction +2 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stocznia Gdanska S. A.

Claimant

Latvian Shipping Company

First Defendant

Latreefers Inc

Second Defendant

Erik Henriksen

Third Defendant

CFM Finance Limited

Fourth Defendant

Latmar Services Limited

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract and Tort Claims / Final Judgment at High Court, Following Prior Summary Judgments, Appeals, and House of Lords Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Latreefers breached shipbuilding contracts
  2. 2 Whether Latco, Mr Henriksen, and others induced breach of contract
  3. 3 Whether the Yard was entitled to rescind contracts and claim damages

Ratio Decidendi

The Yard was entitled to rescind the contracts for non-payment but its rights to damages were governed strictly by the contract terms, not common law. Claims for inducement of breach could proceed against Latco and Mr Henriksen, but not for recovery of instalments after rescission. Jurisdiction was established for tort claims but not for contract claims against Latco.

Court Disposition

Claim for recovery of instalments dismissed; damages to be assessed under contract; claims for inducement of breach allowed to proceed

Orders

  • Summary judgment against Latreefers for initial instalments reversed
  • Damages to be assessed under clause 5.05 of contract