Israel (Jack L.) Ltd v Ocean Dynamic Lines S.A. (Ocean Dynamic)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1982 |
| Year | 1982 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
5 cases
-
Union Discount Company Ltd v Zoller and Others
...cannot be recovered in an English action between the same parties”. For this proposition the learned editors cite The Ocean Dynamic [1982] 2 Lloyd's Rep 88, a decision of Robert Goff 2Union Cal Limited (“Union Cal”) entered into contracts with Robert Zoller & others to whom we shall refer ......
-
The "Shravan"
... ... of its A960 cargo at OPL onto the vessel Ocean Enterprise. It then proceeded to the Caltex ... of tanks 3C and 9C, including those in the lines and cross-overs would have been cleared and ... Steamers Ltd [1943] 76 Lloyd LR 58 , Jack L Israel Ltd v Ocean Dynamic Lines SA [1982] 2 ... ...
-
CMOC Sales & Marketing Ltd v Person Unknown and 30 others
... [2012] EWHC 3747 (Comm), and that is when he found at paragraph 94(iv) of his judgment. That case distinguished The Ocean Dynamic [1982] 2 Lloyd's Rep 88, which was distinguishable because that was the cost of parallel substantive proceedings to the underlying substantive mitigation here,......
-
National Westminster bank Plc v Rabobank Nederland
...principle applies equally where the previous proceedings have occurred abroad: see McGregor, Damages 17–004. In The Ocean Dynamic [1982] 2 Lloyd's Rep 88, Robert Goff J. dismissed a claim for damages based on the costs incurred by the successful party who had started and then discontinued a......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF JURISDICTION CLAUSES
...of action; see also para 17 where the Court of Appeal accepted an argument from counsel that the dicta of Goff J in Ocean Dynamic[1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 88 was inapplicable as Goff J was not there considering a case where the plaintiffs had a free-standing cause of action entitling them to see......