Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC v PSI Energy Holding Company BSC & Ors [2011] EWHC 2718 (Comm) (24 October 2011)

Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC v PSI Energy Holding Company BSC & Ors [2011] EWHC 2718 (Comm) (24 October 2011)

The Bank's application for summary judgment is dismissed because at least two defences—the alleged engineering of default by the Bank and the alleged shared understanding or estoppel by convention regarding the value of Plantation—have a realistic prospect of success and require factual investigation at trial.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2718 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC; First Defendant: PSI Energy Holding Company BSC; Second Defendant: Ryan Cornelius; Third Defendant: Charles Ridley; Fourth Defendant: Eren Nil; Fifth Defendant: CCH (Europe) GmbH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Debt Claim (summary Judgment Application) / Application for Summary Judgment Prior to Trial
Outcome
Summary judgment application dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Guarantee and Indemnity, Security Enforcement, Estoppel by Convention, Rectification, Fraud, Equitable Duties of Mortgagee, Jurisdiction, Parallel Proceedings
Commercial Law Contract Law Banking and Finance Summary Judgment Guarantee and Indemnity Security Enforcement Estoppel by Convention Rectification +4 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC

Claimant

PSI Energy Holding Company BSC

First Defendant

Ryan Cornelius

Second Defendant

Charles Ridley

Third Defendant

Eren Nil

Fourth Defendant

CCH (Europe) GmbH

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Debt Claim (summary Judgment Application) / Application for Summary Judgment Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bank is entitled to summary judgment for US$440 million under the Restructuring Agreement guarantees
  2. 2 Whether the Bank engineered a default under the RSA, discharging the Defendants' obligations
  3. 3 Whether there was a shared understanding or estoppel by convention regarding the value of Plantation lease at assignment extinguishing the debt

Ratio Decidendi

The Bank's application for summary judgment is dismissed because at least two defences—the alleged engineering of default by the Bank and the alleged shared understanding or estoppel by convention regarding the value of Plantation—have a realistic prospect of success and require factual investigation at trial.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment application dismissed

Orders

  • Bank's application for summary judgment against Second, Third, and Fourth Defendants is dismissed
  • Defendants to plead out such defences as they wish to assert