Listed below are some the recent litigation cases handled by Russell Ridley.
Those post 01.01.05 have been handled under the auspices of RR&CO.
The vast majority of cases handled by RR&CO are arbitrations and therefore by virtue of being confidential are unreported.
Please click on the case, to read a brief summary.
2009 - Admiralty Court
QUANTUM: Kamal XXVI, The Owners of v Ariela, The Owners of (EWHC 177 (Comm) (10 February 2009))
2007 - Admiralty Court
2007 - High Court
Maersk Oil UK Ltd v Dresser Rand (UK) Ltd (EWHC 1039 (TCC) (04 May 2007))
2006 - Court of Appeal
Nausch, Hogan and Murray v Talbot Underwriting Ltd (EWCA Civ 889 (29 June 2006))
2005 - High Court
Talbot Underwriting Ltd. v Nausch, Hogan and Murray (EWHC 2359 (Comm) (31 October 2005))
2004 - High Court
2002 - Admiralty Court
Siboeva v MV Vitastar, the owners of the, (EWHC 370 (Admlty) (March 12, 2002))
2001 - Court Of Appeal
Petroleo Brasiliero SA & Ors v Mellitus Shipping Inc & Anor (EWCA Civ 418 (29 March 2001))
Summaries:
QUANTUM: Kamal XXVI, The Owners of v Ariela, The Owners of (EWHC 177 (Comm) (10 february 2009))
We acted on behalf of the Ariela a substantial dry bulker that brushed passed the Kamal vessels when entering the port of Mormugoa. The Ariela had previously been found 100% liable for the collision in the Liability trial (see below). The Claimants, represented by Ince & Co pursued a claim for US$1,296,583.00 which was almost entirely unfounded and substantially exaggerated. After the quantum trial, wherein the Claimants recovered nothing in respect of the barge and only US$6,245 in respect of the dredger (i.e. less than 0.5% of the sum claimed). The Claimants were ordered to pay the Defendants costs of the quantum reference to be assessed on the indemnity basis the Claimants to pay interest on such costs at the rate of 6% above the prevailing United States base rate. The US dollar figure to be paid was ordered to be at the same rate of conversion into US dollars as the rate the Defendants bank charged the Defendants upon payment of the relevant cost invoices. The Defendants had incurred legal costs in excess of US$700,000.00 in defending this hopeless and exaggerated claim and an immediate payment of US$325,000.00 was ordered.
As a result of this finding a further action was commenced to recover the Liability Costs from the owners of the dredger and the barge on the basis that the Claim was fraudulent a decision is anticipated before the year end.
Barristers: Timothy Hill
Back to the top
LIABILITY: Kamal XXIV, The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship and Barge v The Owners of the Ship Ariela (EWHC 2434 (Comm) (23 October 2007))
This action arises out of a "collision" in the entrance channel to Mormugoa (Goa) at night on 30 April 2004. Our clients, the Defendants vessel Ariela brushed past the Claimants unlit hopper barge Kamal XXIV that was moored alongside the Claimants' dredger Kamal XXIV to the north of the entrance channel. The claim was pursued by Ince & Co who represented the Owners of the Kamal vessels and their London Underwriters. The bush-past brought the barge into contact with the dredger. Although the damage to Ariela was non-existant, it was alleged that both the barge and the dredger were heavily damaged and a substantial H&M claim had been paid by their London Underwriters. A claim was submitted to our clients in the sum of US$1,296,583.00. On the 1st of March 2005 we had made a Part 36 offer on Liability on the basis that our clients were 70% to blame for the collision arguing that on the evidence the barge was unlit and that their vessels had not cleared the channel as ordered by the Port Authority. On the 6th of September 2006, we subsequently increased that offer such that our Clients were prepared to accept 80% of the blame for the collision, these offers were refused. In the event we contested liability at trial because 20% of a claim of about US$1.3 million remained a significant sum. However, 20% of the sum eventually awarded was an insignificant sum and the Defendants would not have incurred the costs of a liability trial to avoid the same. Indeed at the outset of this case on the 1st of March 2005 we had served a pre-action Part 36 Offer of US$40,000 which was not accepted. Despite our best efforts the Admiralty Judge, The Honourable Mr Justice David Steel found our clients 100% liable for the collision.
Barristers: Timothy Hill
Back to the top
Maersk Oil UK Ltd v Dresser Rand (UK) Ltd (EWHC 1039 (TCC) (04 May 2007))
-
23 day breach of contract claim arising from a defective gas compressor on a North Sea oil platform. Complex technical claim involving process engineering and vibration expert evidence.
-
Russell acted for Maersk Oil in the Technology and Construction Court. They successfully recovered damages of £2m against their contractor Dresser-Rand. Maersk had at all stages been willing to negotiate and made settlement offers on a very realistic basis, but were forced to go to trial to recover full compensation. Reflecting this the judge not only awarded Maersk all of its costs, but ordered assessment on the indemnity basis, interest on costs at 5pc above base rate and interest on damages at 7.5pc above base rate.
Barristers: Peter McMaster QC & Thomas Braithwaite
Back to the top
Nausch, Hogan and Murray v Talbot Underwriting Ltd (EWCA Civ 889 (29 June 2006))
The issues:
Cooke J. gave directions for the determination of ten preliminary issues, but the notice of appeal only sought to challenge his decision in relation to five of them and by the end of the hearing those five had been reduced to the following four (for convenience I have retained their original numbering):
Issue 1: Was Sembawang a co-assured under the Builders' Risks Policy on the grounds set out in sub-paragraph 7(7) of the Amended Defence and Counterclaim [i.e. because it was an assured or an additional assured or was insured as an undisclosed principal]?
Issue 3: Assuming the relevant facts which may be relied on by the Claimants in support of their allegation of non-disclosure of the circumstances alleged in paragraph 6(d) and/or paragraph 7 of the Amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim [i.e. CPL's intention to contract on behalf of Sembawang and its authority to do so],
(1) Was CPL and/or Sea Trucks obliged, as a matter of law, to disclose the said circumstances?
(2) Did the London insurers, by reason of the terms of the Builders' Risks Policy, waive disclosure of the said circumstances?
Issue 8: Did Sembawang suffer no loss as a result of any alleged breach of duty on the part of NHM on any of the grounds set out in paragraph 9(1) of the Amended Defence and Counterclaim [i.e. because it was not liable to make good the damage to the vessel]?
Issue 9: Did CPL suffer no loss (by way of a liability to Sembawang for breach of clause 15.12 of the Completion Contract) as a result of any alleged breach of duty on the part of NHM on the grounds set out in paragraph 16C of the Amended Defence and Counterclaim [i.e. because CPL was itself entitled to recover the full amount of the loss under the policy]?
[COA added the words in brackets to assist in understanding the nature of the issues.]
Barristers: Gavin Kealey Q.C. & Charles Kimmins
Back to the top
Talbot Underwriting Ltd. v Nausch, Hogan and Murray (EWHC 2359 (Comm) (31 October 2005))
The issues to be determined were:
(A) Co-assured issue
1. Was Sembawang a co-assured under the Builders' Risks Policy on the grounds set out in sub-paragraph 7(7) of the Amended Defence and Counterclaim?
2. Was Sembawang a beneficiary of a trust in respect of the London insurers' promise of an indemnity under the Builders' Risks Policy as alleged in paragraph 7(8) of the Amended Defence and Counterclaim?
(B) The Non-disclosure issue
3. Assuming the relevant facts which may be relied on by the Claimants in support of their allegation of non-disclosure of the circumstances alleged in paragraph 6(d) and/or paragraph 7 of the Amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim,
(1) Was CPL and/or Sea Trucks obliged, as a matter of law, to disclose the said circumstances?
(2) Did the London insurers, by reason of the terms of the Builders' Risks Policy, waive disclosure of the said circumstances?
4. If the London insurers were entitled to avoid the Builders' Risks Policy as alleged in paragraph 6(d) and/or paragraph 7 of the Amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, did the London insurers lose the entitlement to avoid by reason of (a) their entering into the Assignment Agreement dated 26th July 2004 with CPL, Sea Trucks and Sembawang and/or (b) their commencement of the proceedings and/or the service of statements of case herein?
5. Is there a real prospect that the London insurers would succeed in their allegation that they would have avoided the Builders' Risks Policy if they were entitled to avoid the Policy by reason of non-disclosure of the matters alleged in paragraph 6(d) and/or paragraph 7 of the Amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim?
6. If the Court answered "yes" to question 1 above but only on the grounds set out in paragraph 7(7)(b)(iii) of the Amended Defence and Counterclaim or if the Court answered "yes" to question 2 above, would it be irrelevant to the claim against NHM if the London insurers were entitled to avoid, and would have avoided, the Builders' Risks Policy as alleged in paragraph 6(d) and/or paragraph 7 of the Amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim?
(C) Para. 13(6), 15 and 21A of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim
7. Is there a real prospect that the London insurers would succeed in their claim for damages on the grounds that NHM failed to place the Builders' Risks Policy which expressly named Sembawang as a co-assured and/or to ensure that Sembawang was identified as a co-assured on the face of the Builders' Risks Policy with sufficient or any clarity?
(D) The No Loss issue
8. Did Sembawang suffer no loss as a result of any alleged breach of duty on the part of NHM on any of the grounds set out in paragraph 9(1) of the Amended Defence and Counterclaim?
9. Did CPL suffer no loss (by way of a liability to Sembawang for breach of clause 15.12 of the Completion Contract) as a result of any alleged breach of duty on the part of NHM on the grounds set out in paragraph 16C of the Amended Defence and Counterclaim?
(E) The Delay issue
10. Is there a real prospect that the London Insurers will succeed in their claim for items L and/or M referred to in Steege Kingston's third report dated 20th May 2004, or are they excluded from cover under the Builders' Risks Policy pursuant to section 55(2)(b) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906?"
Barristers: Gavin Kealey Q.C. & Charles Kimmins
Back to the top
BP Exploration Operating Company Ltd v Kvaerner Oilfield Products Ltd & Anor (EWHC 999 (Comm) (06 May 2004))
-
This is a trial of preliminary issues which arises out of a claim by BP that certain equipment supplied to it as part of the facilities for recovering oil from the Schiehallion and Loyal fields, west of the Shetland Islands, was defective. The equipment supplied consisted of subsea control modules (SCM) and directional control valves. Hydraulic control equipment ultimately controls the flow of production and other fluids into and out of the oil wells by means of the SCM and the directional control valves mounted on the Xmas tree which is located on the sea bed on top of the well head. The electrical equipment forms part of an umbilical system consisting of sub sea cables carrying electrical signals out of the units in which those cables terminate. This equipment is tied back to a Floating Production Storage and Offloading facility which consists of a large vessel with a substantial processing and storage capacity. The product is carried ashore by tankers.
Barristers: Mr Peter McMaster
Back to the top
Siboeva v MV Vitastar, the owners of the, (EWHC 370 (Admlty) (March 12, 2002))
-
This action arises out of a collision on the 29th January 1998 in the Dardanelles, between the Norwegian vessel Siboeva, owned by the claimants, and the Cypriot vessel Vitastar, owned by the defendants.
-
Siboeva is a motor vessel of a 45,593 tonnes gross, some 246.9 metres in length and 32.3 metres in beam and powered by diesel engines of 10,901 bhp. At the time of the collision, she was in the course of a voyage from Constanza to Suez in ballast.
-
Vitastar is a motor vessel of 37,700 tonnes gross, some 228.6 metres in length and 32.2 metres in beam and powered by diesel engines of 17,100 bhp. At the time of the collision, she was in the course of a voyage from China to Constanza laden with 65,616 tonnes of coal.
-
It follows that Siboeva was proceeding southwards through the Dardanelles and Vitastar northwards. There is a traffic separation scheme in the Dardanelles. Given that Siboeva was equipped with a course recorder and an engine logger, it might be anticipated that there would be little issue as to the primary facts. However, whilst it became common ground that the collision occurred in the southbound lane, there remain substantial issues between the parties, in particular as to whether Siboeva had earlier entered her wrong water or had at least trespassed in the separation zone.
Barristers: Nigel Teare QC
Back to the top
"The Baltic Flame"
Petroleo Brasiliero SA & Ors v Mellitus Shipping Inc & Anor (EWCA Civ 418 (29 March 2001))
-
In these two appeals, raising identical issues, the appellants and fourth party ("Saudi Aramco"), who are in each case defendants to a Part 20 claim for contribution by the respondents and third party ("Fortum"), appeal against orders to similar effect made by Longmore J on 10 April 2000, whereby he (inter alia) dismissed Saudi Aramco's applications to set aside Fortum's Part 20 claims and/or service of those claims out of the jurisdiction upon Saudi Aramco and, in consequence, also ordered that Saudi Aramco pay one half of Fortum's costs of the application in the first action (1998 Folio 645) and the whole of Fortum's costs of the application in the second action (1998 Folio 856).
-
The actions concern two shipments of propane each carried on the vessel "Baltic Flame" in April and November 1993 respectively. The parties and the factual allegations in each action are essentially the same. Saudi Aramco was the shipper of both cargoes and the original party to the Bills of Lading under which they were carried. Both cargoes were shipped from Yanbu in Saudi Arabia, six Bills of Lading being issued, dated 9 April 1993, in respect of the April cargo and one only, dated 16 November 1993, in respect of the November cargo.
-
Both cargoes were tested on loading and found to be "on specification". However when they arrived at their intended ports of discharge, both cargoes failed copper strip corrosion tests. As a result the cargoes had to be carried on to other discharge facilities and sold at a discount by their intended receivers ("Petrobras"), who are the plaintiffs in each action. Further, as a result of the apparent contamination of the shipments, the shipowners ("Mellitus"), who are the defendants in the actions, lost time and incurred expenses at the discharge ports and elsewhere, and incurred further costs in cleaning and removing residues of the cargoes from the vessel's tanks after each carriage.
Barristers: Iain Milligan QC & Michael Coburn Esquire
Back to the top
"The Berge Sisar"
Borealis Ab v. Stargas Limited and Others and Bergesen (All ER 193 (22nd March 2001))
The Facts
In this case, the "Berge Sisar" was chartered in October 1993 by Stargas to carry a cargo of liquid propane from Yanbu in Saudi Arabia to Stenungsund in Sweden. The cargo was originally bought by Stargas from the Saudi Arabian shippers and then on-sold to Borealis. On the ship's arrival at the Borealis terminal at Stenungsand, Borealis rejected the cargo as contaminated and arranged for its sale, at a much reduced value, to Dow Europe, with delivery at Terneuzen in Holland. The cargo was discharged in Terneuzen in late November 1993. Neither at Stenungsand nor at Terneuzen were the original bills of lading available. The shipowners, Bergesen, therefore agreed to deliver the cargo without production of the bills of lading against an indemnity from Stargas. It was only in January 1994 that the original bills of lading were forwarded by Stargas to Borealis and by Borealis to Dow.The Arguments
Disputes arose between the various parties as to whether the contamination of the cargo was a pre-shipment condition or arose whilst on board the "Berge Sisar". In the course of the various proceedings, Bergesen claimed against Borealis for the costs of cleaning the ship's tanks, pumps and lines from the contaminated cargo. The basis for this claim was that Borealis was liable under section 3(1) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of 1992, for the breach of the original shipper's obligation under Article IV Rule 6 of the amended Hague Rules not to ship a dangerous cargo.If Borealis were so liable, the further question arose as to whether they remained liable even after they had endorsed the bills of lading to Dow and had therefore ceased to be holders of those bills.
The Decision
A party that does not take delivery of a cargo, nor demand its delivery, as provided by section 3(1)(c) of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of 1992, at a time when that party is not the 'lawful holder of a bill of lading' so as to 'have transferred and vested in him all rights of suit under the contract of carriage as if he had been party to that contract' under section 2(1) of the Act, does not become subject to the liabilities under that contract.If a party, having once become subject to the liabilities under the contract of carriage, endorses his rights to another so as to transfer to that other his rights under the contract, the transferor is no longer subject to the liabilities under that contract.
Back to the top