Linsen International Ltd & Ors v Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 2339 (Comm) (14 September 2011)

Linsen International Ltd & Ors v Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 2339 (Comm) (14 September 2011)

The claimants failed to establish a good arguable case for piercing the corporate veil to render the third to thirteenth defendants liable under the original contracts or guarantees. The evidence did not show abuse of the corporate structure at the relevant time or that the contracts or parties were shams. Although...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2339 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Linsen International Limited; Claimant: Nelson Cove Shipholding S.A.; Claimant: Elspeth Shipping Corporation; Claimant: Roford Services S.A.; Defendant: Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd; Defendant: P.T. Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK Ltd; Defendant: Humpuss Transportasi Kimia; Defendant: Silverstone Development Inc.; Defendant: Cometco Shipping Inc.; Defendant: Lucky Vision Management Corporation; Defendant: First Topaz Incorporation; Defendant: New Century Inc.; Defendant: P.T. Humpuss; Defendant: Humpuss Inc.; Defendant: Garnet Investments Ltd; Defendant: Hutomo Mandala Putra (Tommy Suharto); Defendant: Humolco Trans Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (freezing Injunction, Joinder, Service Out of Jurisdiction) / Judgment on Continuation/discharge of Freezing Injunction at Return Date
Outcome
Freezing injunctions against the third to thirteenth defendants discharged; claimants' applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Chabra Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Arbitration Enforcement
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Company Law Freezing Injunctions Piercing the Corporate Veil Chabra Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Arbitration Enforcement

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linsen International Limited

Claimant

Nelson Cove Shipholding S.A.

Claimant

Elspeth Shipping Corporation

Claimant

Roford Services S.A.

Claimant

Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd

Defendant

P.T. Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK Ltd

Defendant

Humpuss Transportasi Kimia

Defendant

Silverstone Development Inc.

Defendant

Cometco Shipping Inc.

Defendant

Lucky Vision Management Corporation

Defendant

First Topaz Incorporation

Defendant

New Century Inc.

Defendant

P.T. Humpuss

Defendant

Humpuss Inc.

Defendant

Garnet Investments Ltd

Defendant

Hutomo Mandala Putra (Tommy Suharto)

Defendant

Humolco Trans Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (freezing Injunction, Joinder, Service Out of Jurisdiction) / Judgment on Continuation/discharge of Freezing Injunction at Return Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have a good arguable case to justify continuation of a worldwide freezing injunction against the third to thirteenth defendants
  2. 2 Whether the corporate veil can be pierced to render third to thirteenth defendants liable under charterparties and guarantees
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant a Chabra injunction against foreign defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish a good arguable case for piercing the corporate veil to render the third to thirteenth defendants liable under the original contracts or guarantees. The evidence did not show abuse of the corporate structure at the relevant time or that the contracts or parties were shams. Although there was an arguable case of asset transfers to frustrate enforcement, this did not justify making the additional defendants liable under the contracts. The court also lacked jurisdiction to grant a Chabra injunction as all relevant defendants were outside the jurisdiction and no gateway for service out was satisfied.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunctions against the third to thirteenth defendants discharged; claimants' applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Freezing injunctions granted by HHJ Mackie QC on 9 June 2011 discharged as against the third to thirteenth defendants.
  • Permission to appeal refused.