Coupland v Arabian Gulf Oil Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WALLER,LORD JUSTICE ROBERT GOFF,LORD JUSTICE OLIVER |
| Judgment Date | 20 June 1983 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1983] EWCA Civ J0620-2 |
| Docket Number | 83/0289 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 20 June 1983 |
[1983] EWCA Civ J0620-2
Lord Justice Waller
Lord Justice Oliver
Lord Justice Robert Goff
83/0289
1960 C No. 8633
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE HODGSON)
Royal Courts of Justice,
MR R. CROXON, Q. C. (instructed by Messrs. Amhurst Brown Martin and Nicholson) appeared on behalf of the Appellants.
MR BARRY MORTIMER, Q. C. and MR H. BOOTH (instructed by Messrs. Dibb & Clegg) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
We need not trouble you, Mr Mortimer. I will ask Lord Justice Robert Goff to deliver the first judgment.
There is before the Court an appeal by the defendants, Arabian Gulf Oil Company, against a decision of Mr Justice Hodgson, made on the 2nd January of this year on a preliminary point raised by the defendant appellants in this action.
The action takes the form of an action by the plaintiff, Mr Coupland, who is the respondent before us, against the defendants for personal injuries suffered by him in the course of his employment by the defendants in Libya. It appears from the judgment, and I think it is common ground before us, that Mr Coupland lives in Scotland and is domiciled there and that the defendants are a Libyan Nationalised Oil Company. Like many other oil companies they have offices elsewhere in the world; and they have a registered office in this country, and are registered under Part 10 of the Companies Act.
Mr Coupland was recruited as one of the defendants' senior maintenance technicians. He entered into a contract with the defendants in March 1978; be went out to Libya in June of that year, and then began his employment with the defendants as a senior maintenance technician.
At the end of that year, on 12th December, he unfortunately suffered a serious accident. He was involved in dismantling a substantial piece of machinery, and in the course of that operation he had to climb up the side of that piece of machinery and down again. As he was climbing down, he went past a guard which took the form of a cross-mesh piece of wire in which there was, as has been shown in the photographs before us, a substantial hole. His foot unfortunately went through the hole; it became entangled with a fan and was seriously damaged, as a result of which in due course he suffered a below knee amputation of his leg.
In simple terms, the issues in the action can be said to be whether the defendants were in breach of their duty towards the plaintiff—in other words, were they negligent—and whether Mr Coupland himself was guilty of what we call contributory negligence with the result that he can recover nothing or only part of the damages he has claimed. The pleaded case of the plaintiff, as one would expect, puts forward the claim on three grounds: first on the basis of negligence; second on the basis of breach, of contract; and third on the basis of breach of statutory duty—which I understand to mean breach of Libyan statutory duty.
The learned Judge had to consider certain preliminary points. One of the main points which was advanced before him was that under Libyan Law the plaintiff's claim had been satisfied; that argument was considered by the Judge and rejected by him, and there is no appeal on that point.
However, another matter considered by the Judge related to the appropriate system of law applicable to the claim advanced in this case. The Judge considered the matter both in respect of the claim in tort and the claim in contract, the greater part of his judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rickshaw Investments Ltd and Another v Nicolai Baron Von Uexkull
...in the course of his performance of his contractual obligations. 43 On this point, Mr Bull relied on Coupland v Arabian Gulf Oil Co [1983] 1 WLR 1136 (“Coupland”). In that case the plaintiff was domiciled in Scotland. He was employed to work in Libya by a Libyan nationalised oil company whi......
- Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd and Another v Lorrain Esme Osman and Others
-
Somers v. Fournier et al., (2002) 162 O.A.C. 1 (CA)
...(H.C.), refd to. [para. 54]. Chaplin v. Boys, [1971] A.C. 356 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 55]. Coupland v. Arabian Gulf Petroleum Co., [1983] 2 All E.R. 434 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. Caltex Singapore Pte. Ltd. v. B.P. Shipping, [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 286 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 55]. Herceg Novi v.......
-
BP Plc v Aon Ltd [QBD (Comm)]
...Heath & CoUNK(1930) 38 Ll L Rep 188. County Personnel Ltd v Alan R Pulver & CoWLR[1987] 1 WLR 916. Coupland v Arabian Gulf Oil CoWLR[1983] 1 WLR 1136. C & E Commrs v Barclays BankWLR[2005] 1 WLR Darbishire v WarranWLR[1963] 1 WLR 1067. Edgeworth Constructions Ltd v ND Lea & Associates Ltd(1......
-
THE EFFECTIVE REACH OF CHOICE OF LAW AGREEMENTS
...arising between the parties, as the search for the proper law is an open-ended exercise. 41 Coupland v Arabian Gulf Petroleum Co [1983] 2 All ER 434 (CA) at 446—447. See, for example, Sayers v International Drilling Co NV[1971] 1 WLR 1176 (CA) (validity and effect of exemption clause to tor......
-
Edward John Eyre and the conflict of laws.
...eg, Church of Scientology of California v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police (1976) 120 SJ 690; Coupland v Arabian Gulf Petroleum Co [1983] 2 All ER 434, 443-6 (Hodgson J); Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA [1986] 1 AC 717, 740-1 (Goff LJ); Red Sea Insurance Co Ltd v Bouygues SA [1995] 1 AC 190, 1......
-
Forum non conveniens checkmated?: The Emergence of Retaliatory Legislation
...of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police (1976) 120 Sol. Jo. 690; Coupland v. Arabian Gulf Oil Co., [1983] 1 WLR 1136. 78 See McClean, supra (note76),at pp. 279-80;(1949) 12 MLR 248. to provide for the adoption of the proper law as the theory, 79 and in 1994 t......