Oil in UK Law

The company say to the retailer "We will pay you £5,000 if you will sell our products exclusively at this point for five years" or 10 or 21 as the case may be. In return they get an advantage which is of enduring benefit to the company. It brings in revenue to the company week after week, and month after month, from the petrol they supply to the retailer. I have no doubt this advantage is a capital asset and the payment for it is capital expenditure.

They are claiming loss of profits on the basis that if the repudiation had not occurred the contract with PTT would have continued and profits would have been earned by virtue of MSH being able to deliver oil under it. That was dependant on actions of third parties, actions of MSH and actions of PTT.

At the time of the repudiation found by the judge it was predestined that without the information as to the ports of discharge no confirmation could be obtained from the original supplier. Indeed it was predestined that no oil could be delivered by MSH without the information. It was also predestined at that time that PTT would not supply that information. Only if PTT were in breach of contract for failing so to do could MSH succeed on a claim for damages.

To this there is made the qualification, or condition, that the statutory powers are exercised without "negligence"�that word here being used in a special sense so as to require the undertaker, as a condition of obtaining immunity from action, to carry out the work and conduct the operation with all reasonable regard and care for the interests of other persons.

On the materials available to me, I agree with paragraph 32 of the judgment of Tomlinson J where he found that SNPC is simply part of the Congolese State and has no existence separate from the State. Whilst it previously traded through SNPC UK and now trades itself or through its subsidiary Cotrade, it acts as the trading arm of the State and is controlled by it, whilst putting into effect Government policy in relation to oil and oil products.