MIOM 1 Ltd & Anor v Sea Echo ENE (No 2) [2011] EWHC 2715 (Admlty) (26 October 2011)

MIOM 1 Ltd & Anor v Sea Echo ENE (No 2) [2011] EWHC 2715 (Admlty) (26 October 2011)

The Defendant's counterclaim was effective because the Claimant was too late to raise the time bar, was estopped from doing so, and the Defendant would have been granted an extension of time in any event. The Defendant's settlement offer complied with CPR Part 61, entitling it to costs after 26 February 2010. Costs before that date are to be shared equally in line with liability apportionment.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2715 (Admlty)
Parties
Claimant: MIOM 1 LIMITED; Claimant: THE ISLE OF MAN STEAMPACKET COMPANY LIMITED; Defendant: SEA ECHO E. N. E.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Collision Action / Post Liability Judgment; Determination of Costs and Counterclaim Validity
Outcome
Defendant's counterclaim effective; costs apportioned as per judgment.
Legal Topics
Collision Liability Apportionment, Costs Orders, Limitation Periods, Counterclaims, Estoppel, Extension of Time, Set Off, Single Liability Principle
Admiralty Civil Procedure Collision Liability Apportionment Costs Orders Limitation Periods Counterclaims Estoppel Extension of Time +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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MIOM 1 LIMITED

Claimant

THE ISLE OF MAN STEAMPACKET COMPANY LIMITED

Claimant

SEA ECHO E. N. E.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Collision Action / Post Liability Judgment; Determination of Costs and Counterclaim Validity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's counterclaim was time-barred under section 190 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's offer complied with CPR Part 61 for costs consequences
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was estopped from raising the time bar argument

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's counterclaim was effective because the Claimant was too late to raise the time bar, was estopped from doing so, and the Defendant would have been granted an extension of time in any event. The Defendant's settlement offer complied with CPR Part 61, entitling it to costs after 26 February 2010. Costs before that date are to be shared equally in line with liability apportionment.

Court Disposition

Defendant's counterclaim effective; costs apportioned as per judgment.

Orders

  • Defendant entitled to costs incurred after 26 February 2010.
  • Each party to pay 50% of the other's costs incurred before 26 February 2010.