Glory Wealth Shipping PTE Ltd v Flame S.A.

Glory Wealth Shipping PTE Ltd v Flame S.A.

The tribunal erred in law by holding that Glory Wealth suffered no loss; the right to receive freight under the contract had substantial value, and deprivation of that right by Flame's breach caused a loss to Glory Wealth, regardless of the intended direction of payment to third parties.

Parties
Claimant: Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd; Defendant: Flame S.A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Appeal / Appeal From Arbitral Award Under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Appeal allowed; arbitral award set aside and substituted.
Legal Topics
Damages for Breach of Contract, Loss Assessment, Right to Receive Payment, Agency, Illegality in Contract Performance
Commercial Law Arbitration Damages for Breach of Contract Loss Assessment Right to Receive Payment Agency Illegality in Contract Performance

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

Parties

Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd

Claimant

Flame S.A.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Appeal / Appeal From Arbitral Award Under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a party deprived of the right to receive payment under a contract suffers substantial loss when the payment would have been directed to a third party not acting as agent or holding funds to the party's order
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal erred in law in finding no loss was suffered by the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal erred in law by holding that Glory Wealth suffered no loss; the right to receive freight under the contract had substantial value, and deprivation of that right by Flame's breach caused a loss to Glory Wealth, regardless of the intended direction of payment to third parties.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; arbitral award set aside and substituted.

Orders

  • Set aside the tribunal’s award.
  • Substitute an award in favour of Glory Wealth of US$3,025,800.53.