Global Marine Drilling Company v Triton Holdings Ltd [1999] ScotCS 277 (23 November 1999)

Global Marine Drilling Company v Triton Holdings Ltd [1999] ScotCS 277 (23 November 1999)

The 'Sovereign Explorer' qualifies as a 'ship' under the statutory definition, and the arrestment was competently laid. There was no evidence of dishonesty or oppression in the pursuers' actions, and the guarantee offered by the defenders' parent company was not an adequate substitute for arrestment given the uncertainties surrounding the merger and financial standing.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 277
Parties
Pursuer: Global Marine Drilling Company; Defender: Triton Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Action in Personam / Motion for Recall of Arrestment
Outcome
Motion for recall of arrestment refused.
Legal Topics
Arrestment of Ships, Definition of Ship, Security for Arbitration Claims, Oppressive Arrestment
Admiralty Law Commercial Law Arrestment of Ships Definition of Ship Security for Arbitration Claims Oppressive Arrestment

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Global Marine Drilling Company

Pursuer

Triton Holdings Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Action in Personam / Motion for Recall of Arrestment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 'Sovereign Explorer' qualifies as a 'ship' under section 48 of the Administration of Justice Act 1956
  2. 2 Whether the arrestment is nimious and oppressive
  3. 3 Whether a guarantee from the defenders' parent company should be accepted in lieu of arrestment

Ratio Decidendi

The 'Sovereign Explorer' qualifies as a 'ship' under the statutory definition, and the arrestment was competently laid. There was no evidence of dishonesty or oppression in the pursuers' actions, and the guarantee offered by the defenders' parent company was not an adequate substitute for arrestment given the uncertainties surrounding the merger and financial standing.

Court Disposition

Motion for recall of arrestment refused.

Orders

  • Arrestment of the 'Sovereign Explorer' to remain in place.
  • No order for recall on provision of guarantee.