Tor Corporate AS v Sinopec Group Star Petroleum Company Ltd [2010] ScotCS CSOH_76 (22 June 2010)

Tor Corporate AS v Sinopec Group Star Petroleum Company Ltd [2010] ScotCS CSOH_76 (22 June 2010)

The burden of proving that the pursuer could have remedied its material breach within the three-month cure period under Clause 1(D) rests with the pursuer. The arbiters found there was insufficient evidence on this point, and their award is final and binding. The pursuer cannot now seek to prove this before the court. Consequently, claims for damages for the period after the contract's termination, based on the assumption that the contract would have continued, are irrelevant and inadmissible.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSOH_76
Parties
Pursuer: Tor Corporate AS; Defender: Sinopec Group Star Petroleum Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Specification, Following Arbitration
Outcome
Case to be put out By Order for further procedure; court indicates that claims for post-termination damages are irrelevant and would have been excluded from probation but for parties' agreement.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Repudiation, Burden of Proof, Damages, Arbitration Award, Termination of Contract
Contract Law Arbitration Breach of Contract Repudiation Burden of Proof Damages Arbitration Award Termination of Contract

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tor Corporate AS

Pursuer

Sinopec Group Star Petroleum Company Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Specification, Following Arbitration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who bears the burden of proof regarding the ability to remedy a material breach within the contractual cure period under Clause 1(D)
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer can revisit before the court issues already determined by the arbiters
  3. 3 Whether damages for post-termination loss are recoverable given the arbiters' findings

Ratio Decidendi

The burden of proving that the pursuer could have remedied its material breach within the three-month cure period under Clause 1(D) rests with the pursuer. The arbiters found there was insufficient evidence on this point, and their award is final and binding. The pursuer cannot now seek to prove this before the court. Consequently, claims for damages for the period after the contract's termination, based on the assumption that the contract would have continued, are irrelevant and inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Case to be put out By Order for further procedure; court indicates that claims for post-termination damages are irrelevant and would have been excluded from probation but for parties' agreement.