TOR Corporate AS v China National Star Petroleum Corporation [2000] ScotCS 263 (24 October 2000)

TOR Corporate AS v China National Star Petroleum Corporation [2000] ScotCS 263 (24 October 2000)

The Lord Ordinary's approach in making a 30% deduction from the forecast damages by using a 3-year period instead of 4.25 years was within his discretion, given the volatility and uncertainties of the market. Although a different calculation method could have been used, the end result was justified and not open to interference on appeal.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 263
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: TOR Corporate A. S.; Defender and Reclaimer: China National Star Petroleum Corporation
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Civil Action for Damages for Breach of Contract / Interlocutory (interim) Appeal Regarding Amount of Caution (security) for Recall of Arrestment
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary affirmed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Damages Assessment, Recall of Arrestment, Security for Damages, Interlocutory Orders
Contract Law Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Damages Assessment Recall of Arrestment Security for Damages Interlocutory Orders

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TOR Corporate A. S.

Pursuer and Respondent

China National Star Petroleum Corporation

Defender and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Civil Action for Damages for Breach of Contract / Interlocutory (interim) Appeal Regarding Amount of Caution (security) for Recall of Arrestment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sum of caution (security) to be provided by the defender for recall of arrestment in respect of a claim for future damages for breach of contract?
  2. 2 Did the Lord Ordinary err in his calculation of the period, rig utilisation, and day rates for estimating future damages?

Ratio Decidendi

The Lord Ordinary's approach in making a 30% deduction from the forecast damages by using a 3-year period instead of 4.25 years was within his discretion, given the volatility and uncertainties of the market. Although a different calculation method could have been used, the end result was justified and not open to interference on appeal.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary affirmed.

Orders

  • The sum of caution (security) fixed by the Lord Ordinary stands; no increase ordered.
  • No weight given to new material not before the Lord Ordinary.