Western Bulk Shipowning III A/S v (Carbofer Maritime Trading APS & Ors [2012] EWHC 1224 (Comm) (11 May 2012)

Western Bulk Shipowning III A/S v (Carbofer Maritime Trading APS & Ors [2012] EWHC 1224 (Comm) (11 May 2012)

The Owners have a good arguable claim against CMT and, by exercising the lien clause, have acquired CMT's claims against OceanTask and potentially OceanTask's claims against SeaTask. However, the SeaTask charter is found to be governed by Greek law and arbitration, not English law, and there is no good arguable case that the document produced is not the true SeaTask charter. Therefore, the English court lacks substantive jurisdiction over SeaTask. The risk of dissipation is not established to the required standard.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1224 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Western Bulk Shipowning III A/S; Defendant: Carbofer Maritime Trading ApS; Defendant: OceanTask Corp; Defendant: SeaTask Corp
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (freezing Injunction) / Application to Continue or Discharge Worldwide Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Freezing injunction continued against OceanTask Corp; discharged as against SeaTask Corp.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Lien on Sub Hire, Equitable Assignment, Jurisdiction, Charterparty Disputes
Commercial Law Maritime Law Arbitration Freezing Injunctions Lien on Sub Hire Equitable Assignment Jurisdiction Charterparty Disputes

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

Parties

Western Bulk Shipowning III A/S

Claimant

Carbofer Maritime Trading ApS

Defendant

OceanTask Corp

Defendant

SeaTask Corp

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (freezing Injunction) / Application to Continue or Discharge Worldwide Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Owners have a good arguable claim against CMT and through the charter chain
  2. 2 Whether claims fall within the lien clause
  3. 3 Whether Owners have acquired claims by way of equitable assignment

Ratio Decidendi

The Owners have a good arguable claim against CMT and, by exercising the lien clause, have acquired CMT's claims against OceanTask and potentially OceanTask's claims against SeaTask. However, the SeaTask charter is found to be governed by Greek law and arbitration, not English law, and there is no good arguable case that the document produced is not the true SeaTask charter. Therefore, the English court lacks substantive jurisdiction over SeaTask. The risk of dissipation is not established to the required standard.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction continued against OceanTask Corp; discharged as against SeaTask Corp.

Orders

  • The worldwide freezing injunction is continued against OceanTask Corp.
  • The freezing injunction is discharged as against SeaTask Corp.