ED & F Man Commodity Advisers Ltd & Anor v Fluxo-Cane Overseas Ltd & Ors [2008] EWHC 1997 (Comm) (08 August 2008)

ED & F Man Commodity Advisers Ltd & Anor v Fluxo-Cane Overseas Ltd & Ors [2008] EWHC 1997 (Comm) (08 August 2008)

The court found that the defendants had a real prospect of establishing at trial that a binding agreement was reached on 17 January 2008 not to liquidate positions before a further meeting, and that this agreement was not so uncertain as to be unenforceable. Accordingly, summary judgment was refused on these issues.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1997 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: ED & F Man Commodity Advisers Ltd; Claimant: ED & F Man Sugar Inc; Defendant: Fluxo-Cane Overseas Ltd; Defendant: S/A Fluxo-Commercio e Assessoria Internacional
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (summary Judgment and Freezing Order) / Interlocutory Hearing on Summary Judgment and Freezing Order Set Aside
Outcome
Summary judgment refused on the issues determined; no final money judgment granted; other issues and applications adjourned or not determined.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Freezing Injunctions, Contract Formation, Breach of Contract, Margin Calls, Commodity Trading
Commercial Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Freezing Injunctions Contract Formation Breach of Contract Margin Calls +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ED & F Man Commodity Advisers Ltd

Claimant

ED & F Man Sugar Inc

Claimant

Fluxo-Cane Overseas Ltd

Defendant

S/A Fluxo-Commercio e Assessoria Internacional

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (summary Judgment and Freezing Order) / Interlocutory Hearing on Summary Judgment and Freezing Order Set Aside

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding agreement was reached on 17 January 2008 between the parties not to liquidate positions before a further meeting
  2. 2 Whether any such agreement was sufficiently certain to be enforceable
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be granted to the claimants in light of the alleged agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants had a real prospect of establishing at trial that a binding agreement was reached on 17 January 2008 not to liquidate positions before a further meeting, and that this agreement was not so uncertain as to be unenforceable. Accordingly, summary judgment was refused on these issues.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused on the issues determined; no final money judgment granted; other issues and applications adjourned or not determined.

Orders

  • Summary judgment application dismissed on the issues of the 17 January agreement and its enforceability.
  • No order for money judgment or interim payment at this stage.