Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2009] All ER (D) 194 (May)
Neutral Citation: [2009] EWHC 1024 (Comm)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court
Judge:

Andrew Smith J

Representation Michael Nolan (instructed by Davies Johnson & Co) for the claimant.
  Michael Collett (instructed by Ross & Co) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 14 May 2009

Catchwords

Practice - Summary judgment - Entitlement to summary judgment - Claimant refiner and wholesaler of petroleum products agreeing sale of oil to defendant - Claimant temporarily suspending loading of oil pending resolution of dispute as to price clause in agreement - Defendant retaining sum reflecting late delivery of oil - Claimant seeking payment of retained sum - Claimant applying for summary judgment in its claim - Whether claimant entitled to summary judgment.

The Case

Practice Summary judgment. Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court: On the proper interpretation of the contract for sale of high sulphur fuel oil and light cycle oil, the parties intended that the price should be calculated and paid by reference to the bill of lading date notwithstanding late delivery by the claimant. The submission that effect should not be given to that intention on the grounds that the claimant would be taking advantage of its own wrong would be rejected and the claimant would be granted summary judgment in its claim for the sums retained by the defendant allegedly reflecting the late delivery.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.