Shanghai Shipyard Company Ltd v Reignwood International Investment (Group) Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Popplewell,Lord Justice Baker,Sir Geoffrey Vos, MR |
| Judgment Date | 23 July 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWCA Civ 1147 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: A4/2020/0995 |
[2021] EWCA Civ 1147
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
COMMERCIAL COURT (QBD)
Mr Justice Robin Knowles CBE
Royal Courts of Justice,
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls
Lord Justice Baker
and
Lord Justice Popplewell
Case No: A4/2020/0995
Steven Berry QC (instructed by Holman Fenwick Willan LLP) for the Appellant
Zoe O'Sullivan QC and Harry Wright (instructed by Onside Law Limited) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 14 July 2021
Approved Judgment
This is an appeal from a decision of Knowles J on two preliminary issues determining questions of construction of a guarantee given to support the obligation of a buyer to pay the final instalment of the price under a shipbuilding contract.
The Appellant (“the Builder”) is a company incorporated in the People's Republic of China which operates, as its name suggests, a shipyard in Shanghai providing shipbuilding and repairing services. It is part of the China State Shipbuilding Corporation (“CSSC”), one of the two largest shipbuilding conglomerates in China, with interests in various shipyards, equipment manufacturers and shipbuilding related companies. The Respondent (“Reignwood” or “the Guarantor”) is a Hong Kong company, and part of an international multi-industrial conglomerate first established in Thailand in 1984. Reignwood describes itself as offering investment services, and investing in airport construction, metal processing, food manufacturing and technology sectors.
By a shipbuilding contract dated 21 September 2011 (“the Shipbuilding Contract”) between the Builder and Reignwood as the buyer (not at that stage guarantor), the Builder agreed to build an offshore drillship (Hull No. S6030) (“the Vessel”) for a total price of US$ 200 million. Reignwood had no previous experience of the offshore drilling industry. It came to be involved in the purchase of this vessel as one of four drillships to be built by the Builder at the behest of three individuals who in 2011 had established a company incorporated in Bermuda, Opus Offshore Limited (“OOL”), with a view to purchasing the drillships for operation in the deep sea offshore drilling industry. Reignwood agreed with the management of OOL to participate as a financial investor for the purpose of the purchase of the four drillships, each of which would be held by a single purpose vehicle owned by OOL as the holding company. Opus Tiger 1 Pte. Ltd. (“Opus Tiger 1” or “the Buyer”) was incorporated in Singapore as the first of these four companies, and became the buyer under the Shipbuilding Contract by way of novation. Reignwood acquired a 70% shareholding in OOL and funded the US$ 30 million required for the first two instalments on each of the four drillships, totalling US$ 120 million.
The Shipbuilding Contract was based on a form which was shortly to be published by the China Maritime Arbitration Commission (“CMAC”) as a standard form for use in the Chinese export market, which has become known as the “CMAC Standard Newbuilding Contract (Shanghai Form)”, with a number of significant amendments negotiated by the parties. It provided that the price of US$ 200 million should be paid in three instalments, the first (US$ 10 million) within 30 days of the effective date of the contract, the second (US$ 20 million) six months thereafter, and the third (the final instalment of US$ 170 million) upon delivery. The Delivery Date, as defined in clause 6.1, was to be 900 days after receipt by the Builder of a bank letter of credit securing the payment of the first and second instalments. The contract provided that the final price might fall to be adjusted both by reference to modifications to the specification, and by reference to delays or advancement in the building programme. It also provided for the delivery date to be extended in certain eventualities, such as delay caused by force majeure. Clause 8.1(c) provided that the final instalment of US$ 170 million should be adjusted to reflect any increase or decrease due to modifications and/or adjustments of the contract price in accordance with the provisions of the contract. Title and risk passed to the buyer only upon delivery of the Vessel. Late payments of any instalments, including the final instalment, carried interest at 5% per annum.
Clause 8.6 which was headed “Security for Payment of Instalments before Delivery”, provided that within three days of the Builder providing what was in substance, although not in name, a refund guarantee supplied by CSSC in the sum of US$ 30 million in an agreed form, the buyer should deliver to the Builder an irrevocable and unconditional Letter of Guarantee in the form annexed as Schedule 6B, issued by Reignwood, to secure the buyer's obligation for the payment of the final instalment of the contract price. At this stage Reignwood was the counterparty to the Shipbuilding Contract as buyer, but the clause anticipated the substitution of a special purpose vehicle as the buyer under the Shipbuilding Contract by defining Reignwood also in this clause as “Payment Guarantor”. In fact the substitution did not occur until after Reignwood provided the guarantee.
Clause 7.1 of the Shipbuilding Contract provided for it to be governed by English law and by clause 17.2 for any dispute “which cannot be settled amicably” to be referred to arbitration in London in accordance with the LMAA Rules; and that unless the parties agreed on a single arbitrator, the tribunal should consist of three arbitrators one appointed by each party and the third by the two so chosen or the President of the LMAA failing agreement.
Reignwood arranged for the Letter of Credit for the first two instalments to be issued and provided to the Builder on 31 October 2011, as a result of which the Delivery Date was fixed, 900 days later, as 18 April 2014.
On 17 November 2011 Reignwood entered into an “Irrevocable Payment Guarantee” in favour of the Builder in the terms required by the Shipbuilding Contract (“the Guarantee”). It provided, in relevant respects, as follows:
“
IRREVOCABLE PAYMENT GUARANTEE
To: Shanghai Shipyard Co., Ltd…
1. In consideration of your entering into the Shipbuilding Contract with [ Reignwood] as the buyer (“the Owner”) for the construction of one (1) self propelled drill ship with Shipyard's Hull No. S6030 (“the Drillship”), we, [ Reignwood] hereby IRREVOCABLY, ABSOLUTELY and UNCONDITIONALLY guarantee in accordance with the terms hereof, as the primary obligor and not merely as the surety, the due and punctual payment by the OWNER of the Final Instalment of the Contract Price amounting to a total sum of United States Dollar US$170,000,000 as specified in (2) below… .
2. The instalments guaranteed hereunder, pursuant to the terms of the Contract, comprise the Final Instalment in the amount of U.S. Dollars One Hundred and Seventy Million (US$ 170,000,000) payable by the Owner.
3. We also IRREVOCABLY, ABSOLUTELY and UNCONDITIONALLY guarantee, as primary obligor and not merely as surety, the due and punctual payment by the Owner of interest on the Final Instalment guaranteed hereunder at the rate of five percent (5%) per annum from and including the first day after the default until the date of full payment by us of such amount guaranteed hereunder.
4. In the event that the Owner fails to punctually pay the Final instalment guaranteed hereunder in accordance with the Contract or the Owner fails to pay any interest thereon, and any such default continues for a period of fifteen (15) days, then, upon receipt by us of your first written demand, we shall immediately pay to you or your assignee all unpaid Final instalment, together with the interest as specified in paragraph. (3) hereof, without requesting you to take any or further action, procedure or step against the Owner or with respect to any other security which you may hold.
In the event that there exists dispute between the Owner and Builder as to whether:
(i) the Owner is liable to pay to the Builder the Final Instalment; and
(ii) the Builder is entitled to claim the Final Instalment from the Owner,
and such dispute is submitted either by the Owner or by you for arbitration in accordance with Clause 17 of the Contract, we shall be entitled to withhold and defer payment until the arbitration award is published. We shall not be obligated to make any payment to you unless the arbitration award orders the Owner to pay the Final Instalment. If the Owner fails to honour the award, then we shall pay you to the extent the arbitration award orders.
…
7. Our obligations under this guarantee shall not be affected or prejudiced by:
(a) any dispute between you as the Builder and the Owner under the Contract; or
(b) the Builder's delay in the construction and/or delivery of the Drillship due to whatever causes; or
(c) any variation or extension of their terms thereof; or
…
(e) any time or indulgence granted by you or any other person in connection therewith; or
(f) any illegality, invalidity or unenforceability of the terms of the Contract; or…
…
8. Any claim or demand shall be in writing signed by one of your officers and may be served on us either by hand or by post and if sent by post to [Reignwood's Hong Kong address] (or such other address as we may notify to you in writing, or by tested telex SWIFT code via Siam Commercial Bank PCL HK, with confirmation in writing.
…
10. The maximum amount … that we are obliged to pay to you under this Guarantee shall not exceed the aggregate amount of U.S. Dollars One Hundred Seventy-one Million Four Hundred and Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty-six and Cents Sixty-seven Only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Havila Kystruten A.S. v Abarca Companhia De Seguros, S.A.
...the statement of principles by the Court of Appeal in Shanghai Shipyard Co Ltd v Reignwood International Investment (Group) Co Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1147. The principles can be summarised thus: i) Surety guarantees: a traditional guarantee by way of suretyship is an undertaking by the guaran......
-
上海船厂船舶有限公司 (Also Known As Shanghai Shipyard Co. Ltd) v Reignwood International Investment (Group) Co Ltd
...Officer, for the Official Receiver [1] Shanghai Shipyard Co. Ltd v Reignwood International Investment (Group) Company Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1147; [2021] 1 WLR 5408 [2] Both parties confirmed to the Court that no evidence would be filed in respect of the OS. The Company did not oppose the ......
-
Clause And Effect: "See To It" And "On Demand" Guarantees
...recent case of Shanghai Shipyard Co. Ltd. V. Reignwood International Investment (Group) Company Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1147 the Court of Appeal (COA) unanimously overturned the first instance decision and found a parent company guarantee to be a guarantee 'on demand'. Despite arbitration p......
-
Clause And Effect: "See To It" And "On Demand" Guarantees
...recent case of Shanghai Shipyard Co. Ltd. V. Reignwood International Investment (Group) Company Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1147 the Court of Appeal (COA) unanimously overturned the first instance decision and found a parent company guarantee to be a guarantee 'on demand'. Despite arbitration p......