Export Credits Guarantee Department v Universal Oil Products Company
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Diplock,Lord Elwyn-Jones,Lord Keith of Kinkel,Lord Roskill,Lord Brightman |
| Judgment Date | 24 March 1983 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1983] UKHL J0324-4 |
| Date | 24 March 1983 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1983] UKHL J0324-4
Lord Diplock
Lord Elwyn-Jones
Lord Keith of Kinkel
Lord Roskill
Lord Brightman
House of Lords
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Roskill. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives I would dismiss the appeal.
My Lords,
I have had the benefit of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Roskill. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives I too would dismiss the appeal.
My Lords,
I have had the benefit of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Roskill. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives I too would dismiss the appeal.
My Lords,
This appeal involves a very large sum of money but a very short, and I venture to think, simple question of construction of clause 7(1) of an agreement dated 16th October 1970 and concluded between the appellants and the respondents. This agreement, known as the "Premium Agreement" was one of a number of interlocking agreements concluded between, inter alios, a group of Newfoundland companies, the appellants, and a group of bankers headed by Kleinwort Benson Ltd. ("Kleinworts"), and the respondents, regarding the design, construction and installation of a refinery in Newfoundland, and the financing of those operations. It is unnecessary to relate the details of those highly complex agreements in order to determine the present issue which is whether the obligation seemingly clearly imposed on the appellants by the respondents by clause 7(1) is a penalty so that the sum of £39,571,001.54 which the respondents seek to recover from the appellants in the events which occurred is for that reason irrecoverable in law. It is sufficient to say that the Newfoundland companies made and issued a series of promissory notes for different sums maturing on different dates, and Kleinworts, in return for the promissory notes, provided the requisite funds to one of the Newfoundland companies. The respondents guaranteed those promissory notes but as part of the interlocking transactions required the Premium Agreement to be entered into by the appellants. The appellants paid a premium of over one million pounds sterling in consideration of the guarantee given by the respondents to Kleinworts. A large number of those promissory notes which matured between the 30th September 1973 and the 30th September 1981 were dishonoured. Kleinworts claimed the sum due on the dishonoured notes from the respondents who duly discharged their obligations and now seek to have recourse against the appellants under the Premium Agreement by reason of clause 7(1).
My Lords, the question whether the obligation imposed by clause 7(1) is a penalty is not the only issue raised in the present action. The dimensions of the action can perhaps best be gauged by the fact that the present issue was raised in paragraphs 24 and 131 of the defence and counterclaim and in paragraph 86 of the reply and defence to counterclaim. There is another action of equally large dimensions proceeding between various of the parties to these interlocking agreements with which happily your Lordships are not concerned.
Goff J., as he then was, ordered the question whether clause 7(1) operated as a penalty to be tried as a preliminary issue. Both Staughton J. and the Court of Appeal (Waller and Slade L.JJ. and Sir Sebag Shaw) had no difficulty in concluding that it was not, and for substantially the same reasons. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal but your Lordships' House subsequently gave leave upon being told that this challenge to the efficacy of clause 7(1) as an effective recourse provision was of great general importance since the respondents had issued guarantees...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cadogan Petroleum Holdings Ltd v Global Process Systems LLC
...sums which become payable on events other than breach: McGhee et al (eds), Snell's Equity (32nd ed, 2010) at 13–002; Export Credits Guarantee v Universal Oil Products Co [1983] 1 Lloyd's Rep 448, 458 per Slade LJ; approved by the House of Lords [1983] 1 WLR 33 Here, the obligation to pay ......
- Fawziah Holdings Sdn Bhd v Metramac Corporation Sdn Bhd (No.2)
-
Fulton Shipping Inc. of Panama (Respondents/Owners) v Globalia Business Travel S.A.U. (Formerly Travelplan S.A.U.) (Appellants/Charterers)
... ... The increased value of the shares in the company by which he was employed after his dismissal did ... , however, is that there cannot be any universal rule that market fluctuations over the period of ... ...
-
M & J Polymers Ltd v Imerys Minerals Ltd [QBD (Comm)]
...claim in debt. The Claimant relies upon the decision of the House of Lords in Export Credits Guarantee Dept v Universal Oil Products Co [1983] 1 WLR 399, in which a payment provided to take place upon a specified event was held not to be susceptible to the law of penalties. That is what the......
-
Are Contract Terms Really Binding? Part 1 of 2
...of it, rather than to compensate the injured party for loss occasioned by the breach. In E.C.G.D. v Universal Oil Products Co [1983] 2 All ER 205, Slade LJ defined a penalty clause in the "in the ordinary way, a penalty is a sum which, by the terms of a contract, is made between A and B, A ......
-
Andrews v ANZ - One year on and still no certainty
...Footnotes 12012) 290 ALR 595; (2012) 86 ALJR 1002; [2012] HCA 30. 2Exports Credits Guarantee Department v Universal Oil Products Co [1983] 1 WLR 399 at 402-4, cited with approval by Mason, Wilson and Dawson JJ in AMEV-UDC Finance Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 3[1966] 2 NSWR 717. 4[Curiously, this prin......
-
Security for performance
...with an iraqi Government entity” [2013] iCLR 114 at 120–121. See also Export Credits Guarantee Department v Universal Oil Products Co [1983] 1 WLR 399, and the web site of the UK’s export Finance Department: www.gov.uk. he Multilateral Investment Guarantee agency – a part of the World Bank ......