Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Thakur Shipping Company Ltd (Note)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE O'CONNOR,LORD JUSTICE MAY |
| Judgment Date | 05 July 1984 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1984] EWCA Civ J0705-2 |
| Docket Number | 84/0286 |
| Date | 05 July 1984 |
[1984] EWCA Civ J0705-2
The Master of the Rolls
(Sir John Donaldson)
Lord Justice O'Connor
and
Lord Justice May
84/0286
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.
MR. GAVIN KEALEY (instructed by Messrs. Richards Butler & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Applicants.
THE RESPONDENTS were neither present nor represented.
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.
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.
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.
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 conception. It predicates that...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Company LLC and Others
... ... in Iraqi Ministry of Defence v Arcepey Shipping Co SA [1981] QB 65 should also be noted. In ... of Appeal decision of Normid Housing Association Ltd v Ralphs and Mansell and Assicurazioni ... 22 It is imperative to note, at the outset, that the doctrine of contempt of ... ...
-
Mr. Cooke & Mrs Cooke v Venulum Property Investments Ltd (First Defendant) Mr. Cadman (Second Defendant) Venulum Manor Works Ltd (Third Defendant)
...number of cases have established that. Two in particular were drawn to my attention. They were The Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Limited v Thakur Shipping Company Limited [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep 439 and Veracruz Transportation Inc. v VC Shipping Company Inc. [1992] 1 Lloy......
- Siporex Trade S.A. v Comdel Commodities Ltd
-
Sibir Energy Plc Applicant/Claimant v (1) Gregory Trading SA (2) Richard Enterprises SA (3) Ferenco Investment & Services Ltd (4) Shaw Invest & Finance Corporation (5) Carroll Trading SA (6) Tranquillo Trading SA (7) Ojsc Siberian Oil Company (8) Roman Abramovich Respondents/Defendants
...in the Channel Tunnel relates to cases where the court has jurisdiction but declines to exercise it. In Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Thakur Shipping Co. Ltd 6, the Court held that in a case in which the only existing cause of action was for a declaration, it cou......
