Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Company (The "Mamola Challenger")

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date2011
Year2011
CourtQueen's Bench Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
9 cases
  • Thai Airways International Public Company Ltd (Claimant/Part 20 Claimant) v KI Holdings Company Ltd (formerly known as Koito Industries Ltd) and Another (Defendant/Part 20 Claimant)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 11 May 2015
    ...its expenditure if the contract had been performed: see Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co [2010] EWHC 2026 (Comm), [2011] 1 Lloyd's Rep 47; Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB), [2013] 1 Lloyd's Rep 526, para 187. In this regard the English ......
  • A v B
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 7 September 2018
    ...the tribunal said, it might have been better to spell out that it did not think The Mamola Challenger [2010] EWHC 2026 (Comm); [2011] 1 Lloyd's Rep 47 had any application, although insofar as the case was relied on in support of the compensatory principle that principle was self-evident. 49......
  • Karim Frederick Dhanani v Serge Crasnianski
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 15 April 2011
    ...have been in had the contract been performed; see Omak Maritime Limited v Mamola Challenger Shipping [2010] EWHC 2026 (Comm) and [2011] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 47. Had the contract been performed, and had, as is more likely than not, the Defendant chosen to veto the investments suggested by the Cla......
  • Yam Seng Pte Ltd (a Company Registered in Singapore) v International Trade Corporation Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 1 February 2013
    ...can be recovered as damages for breach of contract was considered by Teare J in Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co [2011] 1 Lloyd's Rep 47. In his masterly judgment Teare J has shown that awarding compensation for wasted expenditure is not an exception to the fundamental pri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Contract Theory and Gain‐Based Recovery
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review No. 76-6, November 2013
    • 1 November 2013
    ...See Omak Maritime Ltd vMamola Challenger Shipping Co Ltd (TheMamola Challenger) [2010] EWHC 2026 (Comm); [2011] Bus LR 212; [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 47.For a difficult, but illuminating, application of this principle, see Commonwealth vAmann AviationPty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64 (HCA).3 For example,......

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