Dhabi v Sd Marine Services

Dhabi v Sd Marine Services

Adyard failed to prove that regulatory changes constituted contractual variations or caused actual delay. The contract provided mechanisms for extension of time, which Adyard did not comply with. Prevention principle did not apply because contract allowed for extensions. No causation in fact was established for delay. SDMS was entitled to rescind under Article II, clause 3.3, and to recover instalments paid.

Parties
Claimant: Adyard Abu Dhabi; Defendant: SD Marine Services
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed
Legal Topics
Shipbuilding Contracts, Variation and Extension of Time, Prevention Principle, Rescission, Delay and Causation, Regulatory Compliance
Contract Law Construction Law Shipbuilding Contracts Variation and Extension of Time Prevention Principle Rescission Delay and Causation Regulatory Compliance

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adyard Abu Dhabi

Claimant

SD Marine Services

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SDMS was entitled to rescind two shipbuilding contracts for delay in sea trials
  2. 2 Whether Adyard was prevented from completing vessels by SDMS's acts or entitled to extension of time
  3. 3 Whether variations imposed by regulatory bodies constituted contractual changes

Ratio Decidendi

Adyard failed to prove that regulatory changes constituted contractual variations or caused actual delay. The contract provided mechanisms for extension of time, which Adyard did not comply with. Prevention principle did not apply because contract allowed for extensions. No causation in fact was established for delay. SDMS was entitled to rescind under Article II, clause 3.3, and to recover instalments paid.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed

Orders

  • SDMS entitled to rescind contracts for Hulls 10 and 11
  • SDMS entitled to return of instalments paid under Article X