Fimbank Plc v Discover Investment Corp

Fimbank Plc v Discover Investment Corp

The claimant did not have a good arguable case for a misdelivery claim because, on the facts and contractual arrangements, delivery was made as intended by the claimant to a party authorised by it. The claimant failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts and the true nature of its arrangements, and the freezing order was therefore discharged both for lack of merits and for non-disclosure.

Parties
Claimant: FIMBANK PLC; Defendant: DISCOVER INVESTMENT CORP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim / Freezing Order Application / Hearing of Inter Partes Application for Continuation of Freezing Order and Cross Application for Discharge
Outcome
Freezing order discharged; claimant's application dismissed; defendant's cross-application allowed.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Misdelivery of Cargo, Bills of Lading, Non Disclosure, Risk of Dissipation, Breach of Undertakings
Commercial Law Arbitration Banking and Finance Freezing Orders Misdelivery of Cargo Bills of Lading Non Disclosure Risk of Dissipation +1 more

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

Parties

FIMBANK PLC

Claimant

DISCOVER INVESTMENT CORP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim / Freezing Order Application / Hearing of Inter Partes Application for Continuation of Freezing Order and Cross Application for Discharge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a good arguable case for a misdelivery claim under the bills of lading
  2. 2 Whether the freezing order should be continued or discharged
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure by the claimant on the ex parte application

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant did not have a good arguable case for a misdelivery claim because, on the facts and contractual arrangements, delivery was made as intended by the claimant to a party authorised by it. The claimant failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts and the true nature of its arrangements, and the freezing order was therefore discharged both for lack of merits and for non-disclosure.

Court Disposition

Freezing order discharged; claimant's application dismissed; defendant's cross-application allowed.

Orders

  • The freezing order is discharged.
  • The claimant's application for continuation of the freezing order is dismissed.