Tansy Shiptrade Inc v Elemento Ltd

Tansy Shiptrade Inc v Elemento Ltd

The application to vary the injunction was refused because the proposed sale contract did not provide sufficient assurance that the cargo sale proceeds would be paid into escrow as required by the existing court order. The terms of the draft contract created a significant risk that both the cargo and its proceeds could be dissipated, and the balance of justice continued to favour maintaining the injunction.

Parties
Applicant: Tansy Shiptrade Inc; First Respondent: Elemento Limited; Second Respondent: Richard Rothenberg
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Interlocutory Application for Variation of Injunction
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Oil Trading Disputes, Agency, Escrow Arrangements, Sanctions Compliance
Commercial Law Injunctions International Trade Interim Injunctions Oil Trading Disputes Agency Escrow Arrangements Sanctions 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tansy Shiptrade Inc

Applicant

Elemento Limited

First Respondent

Richard Rothenberg

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Interlocutory Application for Variation of Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should vary the injunction to permit the sale of the cargo under the proposed terms
  2. 2 Whether the proposed sale contract ensures proceeds are paid into escrow as required by the court order
  3. 3 Whether Tansy remains exposed to liability to PDVSA and/or the shipowner

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the injunction was refused because the proposed sale contract did not provide sufficient assurance that the cargo sale proceeds would be paid into escrow as required by the existing court order. The terms of the draft contract created a significant risk that both the cargo and its proceeds could be dissipated, and the balance of justice continued to favour maintaining the injunction.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application to vary injunction refused
  • Existing injunction and escrow requirements remain in force