TOR Corporate AS v Sinopec Group Star Petroleum Company Ltd [2011] ScotCS CSIH_54 (16 August 2011)

TOR Corporate AS v Sinopec Group Star Petroleum Company Ltd [2011] ScotCS CSIH_54 (16 August 2011)

The arbitrators' refusal to make a finding on whether TOR could have cured its breach within three months (Clause 1(D)) did not constitute a substantive finding of fact or law that would preclude TOR's damages claim in court. The Lord Ordinary erred in treating the arbitration findings as determinative of the damages issue, which had been expressly excluded from the arbitration reference.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSIH_54
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: TOR Corporate A.S.; Defender and Respondent: Sinopec Group Star Petroleum Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (reclaiming Motion) / Appeal From Interlocutor Excluding Damages Claim From Probation
Outcome
Reclaiming motion allowed; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled; case remitted for further procedure.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Damages, Arbitration Scope, Burden of Proof
Contract Law Arbitration Breach of Contract Damages Arbitration Scope Burden of Proof

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

Parties

TOR Corporate A.S.

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Sinopec Group Star Petroleum Company Limited

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (reclaiming Motion) / Appeal From Interlocutor Excluding Damages Claim From Probation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrators' findings precluded TOR's claim for damages for breach of contract
  2. 2 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in excluding TOR's damages claim from probation based on the arbitration findings

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrators' refusal to make a finding on whether TOR could have cured its breach within three months (Clause 1(D)) did not constitute a substantive finding of fact or law that would preclude TOR's damages claim in court. The Lord Ordinary erred in treating the arbitration findings as determinative of the damages issue, which had been expressly excluded from the arbitration reference.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion allowed; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled; case remitted for further procedure.

Orders

  • Recall of interlocutor dated 30 June 2010
  • Remit to Lord Ordinary to proceed as accords