Pacific Maritime (Asia) Ltd. v Holystone Overseas Ltd.

Pacific Maritime (Asia) Ltd. v Holystone Overseas Ltd.

Pacific has a well arguable case for damages based on the cost of a new equivalent accommodation block delivered in Batan, justifying continuation of the freezing order at $8,200,000. The arbitrator lacks effective power to preserve assets against dissipation risk, so the court's freezing order should remain. Security for the cross-undertaking in damages should not be increased as the risk of injustice is greater if required.

Parties
Claimant: Pacific Maritime (Asia) Ltd; Defendant: Holystone Overseas Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Related Application / Interlocutory Application to Vary Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Application to vary/discharge freezing order refused; freezing order continued at reduced amount; application to increase security refused.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunction, Damages Assessment, Security for Undertaking in Damages, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Contractual Interpretation
Commercial Law Arbitration Freezing Injunction Damages Assessment Security for Undertaking in Damages Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Contractual Interpretation

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pacific Maritime (Asia) Ltd

Claimant

Holystone Overseas Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Related Application / Interlocutory Application to Vary Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper measure of damages under contract with alternative obligations
  2. 2 Appropriate quantum for continuation of freezing injunction
  3. 3 Whether security for cross-undertaking in damages should be increased

Ratio Decidendi

Pacific has a well arguable case for damages based on the cost of a new equivalent accommodation block delivered in Batan, justifying continuation of the freezing order at $8,200,000. The arbitrator lacks effective power to preserve assets against dissipation risk, so the court's freezing order should remain. Security for the cross-undertaking in damages should not be increased as the risk of injustice is greater if required.

Court Disposition

Application to vary/discharge freezing order refused; freezing order continued at reduced amount; application to increase security refused.

Orders

  • Freezing order continued in the sum of $8,200,000.
  • Application to increase security for cross-undertaking in damages refused.