National Iranian Oil Company v Crescent Petroleum Company International Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Butcher |
| Judgment Date | 16 November 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 2906 (Comm) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CL-2021-000620 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
[2022] EWHC 2906 (Comm)
THE HON Mr Justice Butcher
Case No: CL-2021-000620
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS
OF ENGLAND & WALES
COMMERCIAL COURT (KBD)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
David Bailey KC, Jessica Sutherland and Frederick Alliott (instructed by Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP) for the Claimant
Ricky Diwan KC and Tariq A Baloch (instructed by McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 27–28 September, 9 November 2022
JUDGMENT ON ADDITIONAL REASONS
On 21 October 2022 I handed down judgment (‘the 21 October judgment’) in relation to the preliminary issue and to Crescent's application for summary dismissal of NIOC's s. 67 application.
In the usual way I had previously circulated a draft of the judgment, for the identification of errors prior to its finalisation. At that stage, NIOC did not suggest that there was a lack of reasons relating to any aspect of the case. In its Points of Difference served on 20 October 2022, which was the day before the scheduled hand down of the judgment, NIOC identified as a ground of appeal, for which permission to appeal would be sought, a contention that the reasons given in the judgment for the dismissal of what was called ‘NIOC's party consent/ ratione personae objection’ were inadequate and cursory.
In light of this and the other points at issue between the parties which had been identified in the Points of Difference, I decided that there should be a two hour hearing of the consequential matters arising from my judgment, at a date to be fixed. That hearing took place on 9 November 2022. In the event, it took longer than two hours.
At that hearing, Mr Bailey KC made an application for permission to appeal. One of the grounds was, again, that the court's reasons in relation to the ‘party consent/ ratione personae objection’ had been inadequate and that, as a result, the way in which this objection had been dismissed was unfair. It was said that the giving of inadequate reasons constituted a free-standing ground of appeal.
In the course of argument, I raised the issue of whether, in the light of a contention that the court had given inadequate reasons on a particular aspect, the proper course was not for the court to consider whether further reasons should be given, as indicated in English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd (Practice Note) [2002] EWCA Civ 605, at paragraph 25. Mr Bailey KC did not argue that this was not an available course. Mr Diwan KC contended that there was no inadequacy in the reasons given in the 21 October judgment, and that therefore no question of the court needing to provide additional reasons arose; but did not dispute that the appropriate course would be for the court to give additional reasons if it considered that there was force in NIOC's complaint that the reasons given had been inadequate.
In the 21 October 2022 Judgment, the reasons for my decision are apparent. I consider, however, that it is of great importance that the parties should not be in any doubt as to what they are, and I accept that certain limited aspects of my reasoning could have been spelled out more explicitly than they were. I have therefore decided that this is a case where it is appropriate to provide additional reasons in relation to the point in question.
Mr Bailey KC submitted that, if the court was considering giving additional reasons, the court should proceed on the basis indicated in In re A (Children) (Judgment: Adequacy of Reasoning) Practice Note [2012] EWCA Civ 1205, at paragraph 25 where Munby LJ said that when a judge was giving further reasons, he ‘should not feel himself constrained to stand by his earlier findings … if on revisiting his evaluation of the evidence he comes to different conclusions’. The situation which had arisen in that case is not exactly analogous to this, but I have sought, in carrying out the process of giving additional reasons, to keep an open mind as to whether that process indicates that my previous determinations were erroneous.
NIOC's complaint as to inadequate reasons relates to a contention that the Tribunal lacked relevant jurisdiction because what it was being asked to determine was (or was in effect) the existence and amount of CGC's liability to CNGC under a contract separate from...
To continue reading
Request your trial