Petrofina S.A. v A.O.T. Ltd (Maersk Nimrod)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1991 |
| Year | 1991 |
| Date | 1991 |
| Court | Queen'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
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
6 cases
-
Policon Ltd v Owners of Ship 'Lloyd Pacifico' [QBD (Admiralty)]
...LI Rep 1. Gatoil International Inc v Arkwright-Boston Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co & OrsELR [1985] AC 255. Petrofina SA v AOT LtdELR [1992] QB 571. Queen of the South, TheELR [1968] P 449. River Rima, TheWLR [1988] 1 WLR 758. Admiralty — Jurisdiction — Action in rem — Arrest of defenda......
-
Zarkovic Stanko v Owners of the Ship or Vessel `MARA`
...said at pp 310-311: The interpretation of the phrase `arising out of` adopted in The Antonis P Lemos was followed in The Maersk Nimrod [1991] 3 All ER 161, at p 171 and The Hamburg Star [1994] 1 Lloyd`s Rep 339, at p 406. In the light of the authorities, we agree with GP Selvam J that the p......
- Empire Shipping Company Inc. v The Shin Kobe Maru
-
The "Indriani"
...Moschanthy [1971] 1 Lloyd`s Rep 37 and The Gina [1980] 1 Lloyd`s Rep 398. Instead, she relied on The Maersk Nimrod; Petrofina SA v AOT [1991] 3 All ER 161 contending that a strict approach must be taken towards the scope of the provision. While the general judicial approach is to broaden th......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
CLAIMS FALLING WITHIN SECTION 3(1)(H) OF THE HIGH COURT (ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION) ACT AND THE RIGHT OF ARREST
...calls was not one which was connected with an agreement of the prescribed type since there was no agreement of the prescribed type. 28 [1992] 1 QB 571. 29 Which is in pan materia with section 3(1)(h) of the HCAJA. 30 [1992] IQB 571 at 578D and E. 31 This is the example given by Phillips J i......