MIOM 1 Ltd & Anor v Sea Echo ENE (No 2)

MIOM 1 Ltd & Anor v Sea Echo ENE (No 2)

The Defendant's offer of 5 February 2010 complied with CPR Part 61, entitling the Defendant to its costs from 21 days after the offer. The Claimant was too late to raise the time bar point against the Defendant's counterclaim, was estopped from doing so, and, in any event, the Defendant would have been granted an extension of time. The Defendant could also rely on the single liability principle to reduce the Claimant's claim. Costs before 26 February 2010 are to be apportioned equally.

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 Issues
Outcome
Costs apportioned; Defendant entitled to costs after 26 February 2010; each party to pay 50% of the other's costs before that date.
Legal Topics
Collision Liability Apportionment, Costs Orders, Limitation Periods, Counterclaims, Estoppel, Extension of Time, Set Off, Interpretation of CPR Part 61
Admiralty Law 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 7 Authorities cited 28 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 Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's offer complied with CPR Part 61 and its effect on costs
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant had an effective counterclaim despite not issuing a claim form within the limitation period
  3. 3 Whether it was too late for the Claimant to raise the time bar point

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's offer of 5 February 2010 complied with CPR Part 61, entitling the Defendant to its costs from 21 days after the offer. The Claimant was too late to raise the time bar point against the Defendant's counterclaim, was estopped from doing so, and, in any event, the Defendant would have been granted an extension of time. The Defendant could also rely on the single liability principle to reduce the Claimant's claim. Costs before 26 February 2010 are to be apportioned equally.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned; Defendant entitled to costs after 26 February 2010; each party to pay 50% of the other's costs before that date.

Orders

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