Andrew Weir Shipping Ltd v Wartsila UK Ltd & Anor

Andrew Weir Shipping Ltd v Wartsila UK Ltd & Anor

AWSL has no realistic prospect of success against WUK under the Supply Contract or Servicing Contract, but does have a realistic prospect of success in tort and under the Overhaul Spare Parts Contracts. The claims in tort and contract against WUK are sufficiently connected to found jurisdiction over WFI under Article 6(1) of Council Regulation 44/2001. Permission to amend is granted for the Overhaul Spare Parts Contracts claim against WUK and the Servicing Contract claim against WFI. Summary judgment is granted in favour of WUK on the Supply and Servicing Contract claims, but refused on the tort and Overhaul Spare Parts Contract claims.

Parties
Claimant: Andrew Weir Shipping Limited; First Defendant: Wartsila UK Limited; Second Defendant: Wartsila Finland Oy (WFI)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (product Liability, Contract, Tort) / Interlocutory Applications: Summary Judgment, Jurisdiction Challenge, Permission to Amend
Outcome
Summary judgment for WUK on Supply and Servicing Contract claims; permission to amend granted in part; jurisdiction challenge by WFI dismissed except as to Supply Contract; directions and costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation, Duty to Warn, Implied Terms in Sale of Goods, Manufacturer/distributor Liability, Amendment of Pleadings
Contract Law Tort Law Product Liability Private International Law Summary Judgment Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation Duty to Warn Implied Terms in Sale of Goods +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 5 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Weir Shipping Limited

Claimant

Wartsila UK Limited

First Defendant

Wartsila Finland Oy (WFI)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (product Liability, Contract, Tort) / Interlocutory Applications: Summary Judgment, Jurisdiction Challenge, Permission to Amend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a realistic prospect of success against WUK in contract and tort
  2. 2 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over WFI under Article 6(1) of Council Regulation 44/2001
  3. 3 Whether AWSL should be permitted to amend its Particulars of Claim

Ratio Decidendi

AWSL has no realistic prospect of success against WUK under the Supply Contract or Servicing Contract, but does have a realistic prospect of success in tort and under the Overhaul Spare Parts Contracts. The claims in tort and contract against WUK are sufficiently connected to found jurisdiction over WFI under Article 6(1) of Council Regulation 44/2001. Permission to amend is granted for the Overhaul Spare Parts Contracts claim against WUK and the Servicing Contract claim against WFI. Summary judgment is granted in favour of WUK on the Supply and Servicing Contract claims, but refused on the tort and Overhaul Spare Parts Contract claims.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for WUK on Supply and Servicing Contract claims; permission to amend granted in part; jurisdiction challenge by WFI dismissed except as to Supply Contract; directions and costs reserved.

Orders

  • Summary judgment for WUK on Supply and Servicing Contract claims
  • Permission to amend Particulars of Claim for Overhaul Spare Parts Contracts against WUK and Servicing Contract against WFI