Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Thakur Shipping Company Ltd (Note)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
JudgeTHE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE O'CONNOR,LORD JUSTICE MAY
Judgment Date05 Jul 1984
Judgment citation (vLex)[1984] EWCA Civ J0705-2
Docket Number84/0286

[1984] EWCA Civ J0705-2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (COMMERCIAL COURT)

(MR. JUSTICE HlRST)

Royal Courts of Justice.

Before:

The Master of the Rolls

(Sir John Donaldson)

Lord Justice O'Connor

and

Lord Justice May

84/0286

The Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Limited
(Intended Plaintiffs) Applicants
and
Thakur Shipping Company Limited
(Indended Defendants) Respondents

MR. GAVIN KEALEY (instructed by Messrs. Richards Butler & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Applicants.

THE RESPONDENTS were neither present nor represented.

1

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
2

In this application the Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Limited, a very well known P. & I. Club, seek a Mareva injunction against Thakur Shipping Company Limited. The action has not yet been begun, but that of course is not uncommon in urgent applications for Mareva injunctions.

3

The problem which faces the Club, and caused Mr. Justice Hirst to refuse the application for an injunction, is quite simply that there is no existing cause of action other than for a declaration.

4

The situation which has given rise to the present application is that Thakur Shipping Company Limited have one of their ships entered with the Club, the shipowners were faced with the arrest of their vessel, and the Club gave a guarantee to the claimants as a result of which they refrained from arresting the vessel. Of course, a counter-undertaking was given by Thakur Shipping Company Limited to the Club, and Mr. Kealey, for the Club, says that there is good reason to believe that (a) the Club is going to be called upon to pay under its guarantee, and (b) that Thakur Shipping Company Limited will default on their undertaking. They say that, in those circumstances, they are entitled to a Mareva injunction.

5

It seems to me that it is important to remember that section 37(1), which is the section of the Supreme Court Act 1981 which gives jurisdiction to this court, speaks of granting an injunction or appointing a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the court that it would be just and convenient to do so. Justice and convenience in this context is not an abstract...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
1 books & journal articles
  • Cross‐border asset protection: an offshore perspective
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Financial Crime Nbr. 10-3, July 2003
    • 1 July 2003
    ...be presentbefore the court would grant relief, Steamship Mutual Under-writing Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Thakur Shipping Co. Ltd[1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep 439, CA (declaration held insucientas a cause of action) followed in Siporex Trade SA vComdel Commodities Ltd [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep 428, QBD;......

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