Fibria Celulose S/A v Pan Ocean Company Ltd and Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Morgan
Judgment Date30 June 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] EWHC 2124 (Ch)
Docket NumberCase No: 04446 of 2013
CourtChancery Division
Date30 June 2014

[2014] EWHC 2124 (Ch)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

COMPANIES COURT

Rolls Building,

110 Fetter Lane,

London EC4 1NL

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Morgan

Case No: 04446 of 2013

Between:
Fibria Celulose SA
Claimant
and
Pan Ocean Co Limited
Defendant

MR M Collings QC and Mr A Winter (instructed by Thomas Cooper LLP appeared on behalf of the Claimant.

Mr M Phillips QC and Mr S Robins (instructed by DLA Piper UK LLP) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.

Monday, 30 June 2014

Mr Justice Morgan
1

I have handed down judgment in the matter of Pan Ocean Company Limited, a case which concerned a number of points under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006. The parties have agreed substantial parts of the order consequential on that judgment. I will now refer to the points where they are not agreed, where I am asked to resolve the disagreement.

2

The first such point relates to an application made by Fibria Celulose SA for permission to commence an arbitration against Pan Ocean Company Limited. I need not go into the background to that. A great deal of information about that is set out in the judgment I have handed down. It seems to me that it is appropriate in this case for that permission to be given. I will deal separately with the effect of an appeal against my decision and whether there should be a stay.

3

As to whether permission should be given, the arbitration which is said to be appropriate, if it is necessary at all, but it is said to be appropriate, is to determine the rights of the parties under the contract referred to in the judgment. If there is no defence to the declaratory relief which is sought by Fibria, then it is not necessary to have an arbitration, but Pan Ocean is not yet prepared to say that there is no defence, so that means that it still is necessary to have an arbitration. Pan Ocean suggests that there may be points that they are able to take, in which case they should be resolved by arbitration, and subject to the possibility of a stay pending appeal, that step should now be available to Fibria.

4

So I will give permission to Fibria to commence an arbitration. Reference was made to the basis on which that application was made to the court. It was on the basis that the arbitration would be for declaratory relief, and for the sake of clarity that should be expressed in the order I make.

5

I go from there to the costs of the various applications before me. There is no dispute about the costs of what is described as the relief application, nor of the request application. As to the costs of the permission application, I am effectively giving Fibria the relief it has sought in that respect. It had to make this application and pursue this application to obtain that relief, and it is entitled to its costs of obtaining that relief.

6

The next matter I am asked to deal with is whether there should be payment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Gunel Bakhshiyeva (in her Capacity as the Foreign Representative of the OJSC International Bank of Azerbaijan) v (1) Sberbank of Russia
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 18 January 2018
    ...whether there is authority against it, as the Respondents submit there is, principally citing the decision of Morgan J in Fibria Celulose S/A v Pan Ocean Co Ltd [2014] EWHC 2124 (Ch) (“the Pan Ocean case”). 130 The application in the Pan Ocean case was made by a foreign representative in re......
  • Agrokor DD v and the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 9 November 2017
    ...of the Model Law or do not accord with the preparatory materials (reports of working groups) that led to the CBIR. In Fibria Cellulose S/A v Pan Ocean Co Ltd [2014] EWHC 2124 (Ch), Morgan J was asked to grant specific relief under (in particular) article 21 of the CBIR in a case where a Kor......
  • Re Peak Hotels and Resorts Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • Invalid date
    ...(No 2) [1993] Ch 196; [1993] 2 WLR 241; [1992] 4 All ER 289Faithfull v Ewen (1878) 7 Ch D 495Fibria Celulose S/A v Pan Ocean Co Ltd [2014] EWHC 2124 (Ch); [2014] Bus LR 1041Fuld, decd (No 4), In the Estate of [1968] P 727; [1967] 3 WLR 314; [1967] 2 All ER 649Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd ......
  • Russell Crumpler and Another v Candey Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 23 June 2017
    ...Atlas Bulk Shipping A/S; Larsen v Navios International Inc [2012] Bus LR 1124 and contrast Fibria Celulose S/A v Pan Ocean Co Limited [2014] Bus LR 1041). It is on this basis that s245 Insolvency Act 1986 potentially comes into play (see Article 23 of Schedule 1 to the CBIR). 11 The parties......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
3 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT