Horizon Maritime Services Ltd v CNS Marine Nigeria Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Bright |
| Judgment Date | 14 June 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 1419 (Comm) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CL-2023-000141 |
[2023] EWHC 1419 (Comm)
Mr Justice Bright
Case No: CL-2023-000141
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
COMMERCIAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Mr Andrew Dinsmore (instructed by HFW LLP) for the Claimant
The Defendant did not attend
Hearing date: 9 June 2023
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 14 June 2023 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
This judgment relates to two applications, arising out of four LMAA Arbitration Awards against the Defendant (together, the “ Awards”):
i) A first award dated 3 March 2021.
ii) A second award dated 29 June 2021 (and corrected on 21 August 2021).
iii) A third award dated 21 August 2021.
iv) An award on costs dated 22 December 2021.
The Awards total USD1,810,044.23 plus GBP 143,015.50 plus interest.
I heard and determined both applications at a hearing conducted remotely on 9 June 2023. In the course of the hearing, I summarised my reasons and indicated that I would later provide a written judgment. I now do so.
The claim against the Defendant
The Claimant issued proceedings under the Arbitration Act 1996 (“ the 1996 Act”), seeking two heads of relief:
i) Permission to enforce the Awards in the same manner as judgments of this Court, pursuant to Sections 66(1) and/or 101(2) of the 1996 Act.
ii) That the Defendant be required to disclose its worldwide assets in excess of US$10,000, by an affidavit, pursuant to s. 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
Having considered the evidence of Mr Nicholas Kazaz, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case for the Awards to be enforced as if they were judgments pursuant to s. 66(1) of the 1996 Act.
This Court is, in general, keen to support arbitration proceedings. One of the advantages of s. 66(1) is that the claimant who has succeeded in arbitration can then seek the assistance of the Court in finding assets against which to enforce. Permission under s. 66(1) of the 1996 Act and an order for disclosure under s. 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 therefore are often raised and addressed together.
As Field J noted in Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd [2013] EWHC 1323 (Comm), at [31], such orders assist in enforcement. The ability of this Court to grant a disclosure order, if permission is given under s. 66(1) of the 1996 Act, therefore demonstrates precisely the kind of legitimate benefit that justifies granting permission under s. 66(1): Nomihold Securities Inc v Mobile Telesystems Finance SA [2011] EWHC 2143 (Comm), per Burton J at [42] to [45]; West Tankers v Allianz SpA (The Front Comor) [2012] EWCA Civ 27, [2012] 1 Lloyd's Rep 398, per Toulson LJ at [38]; cf. Fonu v Demirel [2007] EWCA Civ 799, [2007] 1 WLR 2508, per Sir Anthony Clarke MR at [27].
I therefore grant permission under s. 66(1) of the 1996 Act, and also order that the Defendant provide disclosure of any worldwide assets in excess of US$10,000, by an affidavit, pursuant to s. 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
Service of the order out of the jurisdiction on Mr Ademalola, Mr Magrin, Mr Lorieri and Mr Olawale
The Order referred to above is one that the Claimant already has permission to serve out of the jurisdiction on the Defendant, such permission having been granted by Foxton J on 14 March 2023.
By an application notice dated 23 May 2023 the Claimant seeks permission to serve it on the following individuals, the first three of whom are said to be directors of the Defendant and the last its company secretary:
1.1. Mr Sola Barry Adedamola (also known as Mr Barry Adesola Adedamola or Mr Barry Adedamola), who is thought...
To continue reading
Request your trial