Pharos Offshore Group Limited v Keynvor Morlift Limited

Pharos Offshore Group Limited v Keynvor Morlift Limited

The contract provided for indicative daily rates and not a capped number of days; waiting on weather remained KML's risk; Pharos was not in breach for customs delays as no actual delay was caused; ancillary equipment supplied by Pharos was sub-standard, causing excessive downtime, for which Pharos was liable; Pharos was entitled to payment for the reasonable period of works, including weather downtime, but not for periods prior to arrival of equipment or for breakdowns caused by its breach; KML was not entitled to liquidated damages as no fixed completion date was specified; KML was entitled to set-off for 8 days of culpable delay caused by Pharos's breaches.

Parties
Claimant: Pharos Offshore Group Limited; Defendant: Keynvor Morlift Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Claimant with set-off for Defendant's counterclaim
Legal Topics
Contract Interpretation, Implied Terms, Fitness for Purpose, Delay and Damages, Set Off, Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
Commercial Law Contract Law Contract Interpretation Implied Terms Fitness for Purpose Delay and Damages Set Off Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pharos Offshore Group Limited

Claimant

Keynvor Morlift Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Pharos was entitled to claim daily charges for more than 10 days
  2. 2 Whether Pharos was entitled to claim for more than 7 personnel per day
  3. 3 Whether Pharos was entitled to claim for personnel prior to arrival of UTV-670

Ratio Decidendi

The contract provided for indicative daily rates and not a capped number of days; waiting on weather remained KML's risk; Pharos was not in breach for customs delays as no actual delay was caused; ancillary equipment supplied by Pharos was sub-standard, causing excessive downtime, for which Pharos was liable; Pharos was entitled to payment for the reasonable period of works, including weather downtime, but not for periods prior to arrival of equipment or for breakdowns caused by its breach; KML was not entitled to liquidated damages as no fixed completion date was specified; KML was entitled to set-off for 8 days of culpable delay caused by Pharos's breaches.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Claimant with set-off for Defendant's counterclaim

Orders

  • Pharos is owed £507,402.76 plus VAT (£608,883.31 inclusive of VAT)
  • KML's counterclaim for damages succeeds in the sum of £113,214.63, to be set off against sums owed to Pharos