Vitol SA v Arcturus Merchant Trust Ltd

Vitol SA v Arcturus Merchant Trust Ltd

The court found that the claimant had a good arguable case that the contract was concluded on its standard terms, including the exclusive English jurisdiction clause, and that the defendant's officer had ostensible authority. The evidence did not support the defendant's claim that the claimant was on notice of any lack of authority. The exclusive jurisdiction clause was binding, and the claimant was entitled to an anti-suit injunction. The defendant had no real prospect of defending the claim, so summary judgment was granted for the contract price difference.

Parties
Claimant: Vitol S.A.; Defendant: Arcturus Merchant Trust Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment on Applications for Anti Suit Injunction, Summary Judgment, and Challenge to Jurisdiction
Outcome
Claimant's applications granted; defendant's application dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Clauses, Anti Suit Injunctions, Summary Judgment, Authority of Agents, Contract Formation
Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Clauses Anti Suit Injunctions Summary Judgment Authority of Agents Contract Formation

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vitol S.A.

Claimant

Arcturus Merchant Trust Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment on Applications for Anti Suit Injunction, Summary Judgment, and Challenge to Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction under the exclusive jurisdiction clause
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's officer had authority to bind the defendant to the contract
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to an anti-suit injunction restraining Nigerian proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant had a good arguable case that the contract was concluded on its standard terms, including the exclusive English jurisdiction clause, and that the defendant's officer had ostensible authority. The evidence did not support the defendant's claim that the claimant was on notice of any lack of authority. The exclusive jurisdiction clause was binding, and the claimant was entitled to an anti-suit injunction. The defendant had no real prospect of defending the claim, so summary judgment was granted for the contract price difference.

Court Disposition

Claimant's applications granted; defendant's application dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment for the claimant for US$1.99 million (contract price difference)
  • Anti-suit injunction granted restraining Nigerian proceedings against Vitol and Mansel