Vitol SA v Conoil Plc

Vitol SA v Conoil Plc

The court found that four binding contracts existed between the parties, the Defendant was in repudiatory breach by failing to lift the agreed cargo, and the Claimant was entitled to damages for loss of bargain, delay penalties, demurrage, and storage costs. The Defendant's argument that no contract existed until a letter of credit was issued was rejected. The anti-suit injunction was made permanent to enforce the exclusive jurisdiction clause.

Parties
Claimant: Vitol S.A.; Defendant: Conoil PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial; Defendant Not Represented
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Damages, Anti Suit Injunction, Jurisdiction, Sale of Goods
Commercial Law Contract Law International Trade Breach of Contract Damages Anti Suit Injunction Jurisdiction Sale of Goods

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vitol S.A.

Claimant

Conoil PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial; Defendant Not Represented

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether four binding contracts existed between the parties
  2. 2 Whether Defendant was in repudiatory breach of contract
  3. 3 Appropriate measure and quantum of damages

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that four binding contracts existed between the parties, the Defendant was in repudiatory breach by failing to lift the agreed cargo, and the Claimant was entitled to damages for loss of bargain, delay penalties, demurrage, and storage costs. The Defendant's argument that no contract existed until a letter of credit was issued was rejected. The anti-suit injunction was made permanent to enforce the exclusive jurisdiction clause.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Defendant to pay damages as assessed, less security deposit
  • Interest awarded at US prime plus 1%