Transocean Drilling UK Ltd v Providence Resources Plc & Anor

Transocean Drilling UK Ltd v Providence Resources Plc & Anor

Transocean is not entitled to remuneration for periods of delay caused by its own breach of contract, as the contract does not contain clear language to that effect. The day rate regime does not override the right of abatement or allow recovery for non-performance due to Transocean's breach. Providence is entitled to set off its wasted spread costs against Transocean's claim, as such costs are not excluded by the contract's exclusion clauses. Transocean was in breach of contract regarding the maintenance and condition of the equipment, which caused the delays. Providence's misrepresentation claim fails for lack of reliance and proof of loss.

Parties
Claimant: Transocean Drilling U.K. Limited; Defendant: Providence Resources PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claim and counterclaim both succeed in part; parties to calculate sums due in light of findings.
Legal Topics
Remuneration Under Drilling Contract, Breach of Contract, Maintenance Obligations, Set Off and Abatement, Exclusion Clauses, Causation of Loss, Misrepresentation
Contract Law Commercial Law Oil and Gas Law Remuneration Under Drilling Contract Breach of Contract Maintenance Obligations Set Off and Abatement Exclusion Clauses +2 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Transocean Drilling U.K. Limited

Claimant

Providence Resources PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Transocean is entitled to remuneration for periods of delay caused by its own breach under the contract
  2. 2 Whether Providence can set off its wasted spread costs against Transocean's claim
  3. 3 Proper construction of the day rate and exclusion clauses in the contract

Ratio Decidendi

Transocean is not entitled to remuneration for periods of delay caused by its own breach of contract, as the contract does not contain clear language to that effect. The day rate regime does not override the right of abatement or allow recovery for non-performance due to Transocean's breach. Providence is entitled to set off its wasted spread costs against Transocean's claim, as such costs are not excluded by the contract's exclusion clauses. Transocean was in breach of contract regarding the maintenance and condition of the equipment, which caused the delays. Providence's misrepresentation claim fails for lack of reliance and proof of loss.

Court Disposition

Claim and counterclaim both succeed in part; parties to calculate sums due in light of findings.

Orders

  • Transocean's claim for remuneration is allowed only for periods not caused by its breach; otherwise dismissed.
  • Providence's set-off for wasted spread costs is allowed except where not caused by Transocean's breach.