AMOCO (U.K.) Exploration Company & Ors v British American Offshore Ltd [2000] EWHC 212 (Comm) (12 December 2000)

AMOCO (U.K.) Exploration Company & Ors v British American Offshore Ltd [2000] EWHC 212 (Comm) (12 December 2000)

Amoco achieved the substantive relief sought against BAO, as BAO withdrew all claims in Texas only after significant costs were incurred. The justice of the case requires BAO to pay the costs of the Originating Summons, except those relating solely to Rowan. Difficulties of apportionment are not a reason to refuse a just costs order.

Citation
[2000] EWHC 212 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Amoco; Claimant: Co-venturers; Defendant: BAO; Defendant: Rowan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs Following Discontinuance of Proceedings (originating Summons) / Post Discontinuance, Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs order in favour of Amoco against BAO, with apportionment as specified.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Anti Suit Injunctions, Jurisdiction Clauses, Discontinuance of Proceedings, Apportionment of Costs
Civil Procedure Contract Law Private International Law Costs Orders Anti Suit Injunctions Jurisdiction Clauses Discontinuance of Proceedings Apportionment of Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amoco

Claimant

Co-venturers

Claimant

BAO

Defendant

Rowan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs Following Discontinuance of Proceedings (originating Summons) / Post Discontinuance, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether BAO should pay the costs of the Originating Summons after discontinuance
  2. 2 How to apportion costs between BAO and Rowan given the outcomes of related applications
  3. 3 Effect of withdrawal of claims in foreign proceedings on costs liability

Ratio Decidendi

Amoco achieved the substantive relief sought against BAO, as BAO withdrew all claims in Texas only after significant costs were incurred. The justice of the case requires BAO to pay the costs of the Originating Summons, except those relating solely to Rowan. Difficulties of apportionment are not a reason to refuse a just costs order.

Court Disposition

Costs order in favour of Amoco against BAO, with apportionment as specified.

Orders

  • Costs of the Order 12 rule 8 application (and related applications) to be paid by the Claimants to Rowan as previously ordered.
  • Costs of the Originating Summons to be paid by BAO to Amoco, except for costs relating only to claims against Rowan, for which no order is made.