Cartus Corporation v Atlantic Mobility Ltd [2014] EWHC 2868 (QB) (22 August 2014)

Cartus Corporation v Atlantic Mobility Ltd [2014] EWHC 2868 (QB) (22 August 2014)

AML, through its conduct and failure to provide timely assurances or delivery up of the Woolston lot, justified Cartus in issuing proceedings and incurring costs. Cartus had an immediate right to possession, and AML's actions created a climate of suspicion and uncertainty. Even if the claim regarding the Lambert lot was mistaken, this was substantially contributed to by AML's own failures. Cartus is entitled to 90% of its costs of the application.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2868
Parties
Claimant: Cartus Corporation; Defendant: Atlantic Mobility Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Delivery Up and Costs / Costs Determination Following Interim Application
Outcome
Application granted in part; costs awarded to claimant at 90%; order for joinder of Wayne Sidell as non-party for costs application.
Legal Topics
Bailment, Conversion, Costs, Possession of Goods, Assignment of Contracts
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Bailment Conversion Costs Possession of Goods Assignment of Contracts

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cartus Corporation

Claimant

Atlantic Mobility Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Delivery Up and Costs / Costs Determination Following Interim Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant wrongfully detained goods belonging to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was entitled to immediate possession of the goods
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's conduct justified the claimant in issuing proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

AML, through its conduct and failure to provide timely assurances or delivery up of the Woolston lot, justified Cartus in issuing proceedings and incurring costs. Cartus had an immediate right to possession, and AML's actions created a climate of suspicion and uncertainty. Even if the claim regarding the Lambert lot was mistaken, this was substantially contributed to by AML's own failures. Cartus is entitled to 90% of its costs of the application.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; costs awarded to claimant at 90%; order for joinder of Wayne Sidell as non-party for costs application.

Orders

  • Cartus awarded 90% of its costs of the application for delivery up, including costs of the present application, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
  • Wayne Sidell to be joined as a party for the purposes of Cartus' application for a non-party costs order.