ED & F Man Commodity Advisers Ltd & Anor v Fluxo-Cane Overseas Ltd & Ors

ED & F Man Commodity Advisers Ltd & Anor v Fluxo-Cane Overseas Ltd & Ors

The court found that, on the evidence and transcripts, the parties reached a binding agreement on 17 January 2008 not to liquidate positions unilaterally overnight, and a conditional agreement to proceed with an orderly reduction if margin commitments were met. These agreements were sufficiently certain and enforceable. As a result, the 17 January Agreement defence raised a triable issue, defeating the claimants’ application for summary judgment on the relevant issues.

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 Proceedings (summary Judgment and Freezing Order) / Ruling on Summary Judgment Application and Related Interim Applications
Outcome
Summary judgment refused on the main issues; declarations granted as to the existence of the 17 January agreements.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Freezing Injunctions, Multi Party Contracts, Breach of Contract, Enforceability of Agreements, Margin Calls in Commodity Trading
Commercial Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Freezing Injunctions Multi Party Contracts Breach of Contract Enforceability of Agreements +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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 Proceedings (summary Judgment and Freezing Order) / Ruling on Summary Judgment Application and Related Interim Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding agreement was reached on 17 January 2008 between the parties not to liquidate positions unilaterally overnight
  2. 2 Whether any such agreement was sufficiently certain and enforceable
  3. 3 Whether the claimants were entitled to summary judgment in light of the alleged agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, on the evidence and transcripts, the parties reached a binding agreement on 17 January 2008 not to liquidate positions unilaterally overnight, and a conditional agreement to proceed with an orderly reduction if margin commitments were met. These agreements were sufficiently certain and enforceable. As a result, the 17 January Agreement defence raised a triable issue, defeating the claimants’ application for summary judgment on the relevant issues.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused on the main issues; declarations granted as to the existence of the 17 January agreements.

Orders

  • Declaration that a binding agreement was reached on 17 January 2008 not to liquidate positions unilaterally overnight prior to the 18 January meeting.
  • Declaration that a conditional agreement was reached to proceed with an orderly reduction if margin commitments were met.