Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA & Anor (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 2866 (Comm) (15 November 2023)

Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA & Anor (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 2866 (Comm) (15 November 2023)

The Defendants' misrepresentation, implied term, and collateral warranty defences are wholly unarguable and unsupported by evidence or the contractual documents. The force majeure and sanctions defences fail because (a) the Addendum contains an unconditional payment obligation, (b) the alleged difficulties in payment are due to lack of funds, not force majeure or sanctions changes after the Addendum, and (c) no relevant sanctions change occurred after the Addendum's effective date. There is no realistic prospect of defending the claim or any compelling reason for a trial.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2866 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: LITASCO SA; First Defendant: DER MOND OIL AND GAS AFRICA SA; Second Defendant: LOCAFRIQUE HOLDING SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (summary Judgment Application) / High Court (commercial Court) Summary Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the Claimant.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Force Majeure, Trade Sanctions, Misrepresentation, Implied Terms, Collateral Warranty, Payment Obligations, Rescheduling of Debt
Commercial Law Contract Law Sanctions Law Summary Judgment Force Majeure Trade Sanctions Misrepresentation Implied Terms +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LITASCO SA

Claimant

DER MOND OIL AND GAS AFRICA SA

First Defendant

LOCAFRIQUE HOLDING SA

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (summary Judgment Application) / High Court (commercial Court) Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants have a realistic prospect of defending the claim for payment under the Addendum
  2. 2 Whether there is a compelling reason for a trial
  3. 3 Whether force majeure or sanctions clauses excuse non-payment

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants' misrepresentation, implied term, and collateral warranty defences are wholly unarguable and unsupported by evidence or the contractual documents. The force majeure and sanctions defences fail because (a) the Addendum contains an unconditional payment obligation, (b) the alleged difficulties in payment are due to lack of funds, not force majeure or sanctions changes after the Addendum, and (c) no relevant sanctions change occurred after the Addendum's effective date. There is no realistic prospect of defending the claim or any compelling reason for a trial.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the Claimant.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay the outstanding sums due under the Addendum.
  • Interest payable as per contractual terms.