Tradigrain SA & Ors v Intertek Testing Services (ITS) Canada Ltd. & Anor

Tradigrain SA & Ors v Intertek Testing Services (ITS) Canada Ltd. & Anor

The waiver of recourse clause only allows recourse against CBI for gross negligence by formally appointed directors. No CBI director (nor Mr Rackham) was guilty of gross negligence. The claim fails. Even if gross negligence had been found, the limitation clause would have capped liability at US$2.023m.

Parties
Claimants: Tradigrain S.A. and Societa Italiana Assicurazioni e Riassicurazioni (SIAT) S.p.A. and Others; Defendant: Intertek Testing Services (ITS) Canada Limited; Defendant: Caleb Brett India Pvt Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (damages for Conversion) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Conversion, Subrogation and Waiver of Recourse, Gross Negligence Under German Law, Limitation of Liability Clauses

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

Parties

Tradigrain S.A. and Societa Italiana Assicurazioni e Riassicurazioni (SIAT) S.p.A. and Others

Claimants

Intertek Testing Services (ITS) Canada Limited

Defendant

Caleb Brett India Pvt Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (damages for Conversion) / Judgment After Trial

  1. 1 Construction of 'representative' in waiver of recourse clause under German law
  2. 2 Whether any CBI board member or Mr Rackham was guilty of gross negligence
  3. 3 Whether limitation of liability clause applies in case of gross negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The waiver of recourse clause only allows recourse against CBI for gross negligence by formally appointed directors. No CBI director (nor Mr Rackham) was guilty of gross negligence. The claim fails. Even if gross negligence had been found, the limitation clause would have capped liability at US$2.023m.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed