Global Marine Drilling Co v Triton Holdings Ltd [2000] ScotCS 21 (26 January 2000)

Global Marine Drilling Co v Triton Holdings Ltd [2000] ScotCS 21 (26 January 2000)

A suitably framed guarantee by Schlumberger Limited for US$140,000,000 would afford adequate alternative security to justify recall of the arrestment, given the company's substantial financial standing and the margin between its assets and the guarantee amount. The absence of direct asset location in the UK and the fact that the guarantee is not from a bank do not render the security inadequate in the circumstances.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 21
Parties
Pursuer: Global Marine Drilling Company; Defender: Triton Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 January 2000
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Action in Personam / Interlocutory Motion for Recall of Arrestment
Outcome
Motion for recall of arrestment continued to allow parties to agree and present the form of guarantee; recall to be granted upon acceptance of a suitably framed guarantee by Schlumberger Limited.
Legal Topics
Arrestment on the Dependence, Alternative Security, Guarantees, Recall of Arrestment
Admiralty Law Civil Procedure Arrestment on the Dependence Alternative Security Guarantees Recall of 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Global Marine Drilling Company

Pursuer

Triton Holdings Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Action in Personam / Interlocutory Motion for Recall of Arrestment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a guarantee by Schlumberger Limited constitutes adequate alternative security to justify recall of arrestment of the vessel 'Sovereign Explorer'
  2. 2 Whether only a bank guarantee is acceptable as alternative security for recall of arrestment

Ratio Decidendi

A suitably framed guarantee by Schlumberger Limited for US$140,000,000 would afford adequate alternative security to justify recall of the arrestment, given the company's substantial financial standing and the margin between its assets and the guarantee amount. The absence of direct asset location in the UK and the fact that the guarantee is not from a bank do not render the security inadequate in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Motion for recall of arrestment continued to allow parties to agree and present the form of guarantee; recall to be granted upon acceptance of a suitably framed guarantee by Schlumberger Limited.

Orders

  • Motion continued until 31 January 2000 for parties to discuss and present draft guarantee terms to the court.
  • If parties cannot agree, the court will determine the terms of the guarantee at a later date.