Mobil Oil (Hong Kong) Ltd. v Mobil Sales & Supply Corp [2001] EWHC 532 (Comm) (24 May 2001)

Mobil Oil (Hong Kong) Ltd. v Mobil Sales & Supply Corp [2001] EWHC 532 (Comm) (24 May 2001)

Sinochem Beijing's evidence, though weak, is just sufficient to pass the 'real prospect' test under CPR Part 24; genuine disputes of fact and arguable points of law exist regarding agency, collateral agreements, and the 'off-spec' issue, precluding summary judgment. The counterclaim for return of sums paid also raises issues unsuitable for summary determination.

Citation
[2001] EWHC 532 (Comm)
Parties
Part 20 Claimant: Mobil Oil (Hong Kong) Limited; Part 20 Claimant: Mobil Sales & Supply Corporation; Part 20 Respondent: Sinochem International Oil Co. Ltd (Sinochem Beijing)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment Under CPR Part 24
Outcome
Application for summary judgment refused; Sinochem Beijing permitted to defend and counterclaim subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Set Off, Agency, Mistake, Contract Interpretation
Commercial Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Set Off Agency Mistake Contract Interpretation

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mobil Oil (Hong Kong) Limited

Part 20 Claimant

Mobil Sales & Supply Corporation

Part 20 Claimant

Sinochem International Oil Co. Ltd (Sinochem Beijing)

Part 20 Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment Under CPR Part 24

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sinochem Beijing is liable as buyer under the HK contracts or acted only as agent
  2. 2 Whether there was a collateral contract or oral agreement altering liability
  3. 3 Whether the goods were 'off-spec' and if the conclusive evidence clause applies

Ratio Decidendi

Sinochem Beijing's evidence, though weak, is just sufficient to pass the 'real prospect' test under CPR Part 24; genuine disputes of fact and arguable points of law exist regarding agency, collateral agreements, and the 'off-spec' issue, precluding summary judgment. The counterclaim for return of sums paid also raises issues unsuitable for summary determination.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment refused; Sinochem Beijing permitted to defend and counterclaim subject to conditions.

Orders

  • Sinochem Beijing to provide full security for MHK and MSS's costs in a form and amount satisfactory to MHK and MSS within 28 days, or as determined by the court if not agreed.
  • Determination of the Part 20 claims to be expedited; timetable to be set after hearing counsel.