Diamond Offshore Drilling Uk Ltd v. Gulf Offshore Ns Ltd [2005] ScotCS CSIH_4 (11 January 2005)

Diamond Offshore Drilling Uk Ltd v. Gulf Offshore Ns Ltd [2005] ScotCS CSIH_4 (11 January 2005)

The indemnity provisions in the Amerada Charter did not constitute 'similar contractual provisions' to those in Clause 17.1.1 of the Texaco Charter, as they did not confer a directly enforceable right of indemnity on a class of beneficiaries that included the pursuers. Therefore, the defenders were not protected from suit by the pursuers under the relevant charter party provisions.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSIH_4
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Diamond Offshore Drilling (UK) Limited; Defender/reclaimer: Gulf Offshore N. S. Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Decision on Reclaiming Motion After Preliminary Proof
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused
Legal Topics
Indemnity Clauses, Third Party Rights, Contract Interpretation, Allocation of Risk, Knock for Knock Agreements
Contract Law Maritime Law Oil and Gas Law Indemnity Clauses Third Party Rights Contract Interpretation Allocation of Risk Knock for Knock Agreements

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diamond Offshore Drilling (UK) Limited

Pursuer/respondent

Gulf Offshore N. S. Limited

Defender/reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Decision on Reclaiming Motion After Preliminary Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indemnity provisions in the relevant charter parties precluded the pursuers from suing the defenders in delict for negligence.
  2. 2 Whether the Amerada Charter provided 'similar contractual provisions' as required by Clause 17.1.1 of the Texaco Charter to benefit from the indemnity.

Ratio Decidendi

The indemnity provisions in the Amerada Charter did not constitute 'similar contractual provisions' to those in Clause 17.1.1 of the Texaco Charter, as they did not confer a directly enforceable right of indemnity on a class of beneficiaries that included the pursuers. Therefore, the defenders were not protected from suit by the pursuers under the relevant charter party provisions.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused

Orders

  • The court adheres to the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, rejecting the defenders' plea of indemnity and allowing the pursuers' claim to proceed.