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 |
| Date | 05 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | 84/0286 |
[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.
The Master of the Rolls
(Sir John Donaldson)
Lord Justice O'Connor
and
Lord Justice May
84/0286
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Company LLC and Others
...v Distos Compania Naviera SA [1979] AC 210 (folld) Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Thakur Shipping Co Ltd [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep 439 (folld) Teo Siew Har v Lee Kuan Yew [1999] 3 SLR (R) 410; [1999] 4 SLR 560 (refd) Rules of Court (Cap 322,R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)O 11, O 20r......
- Siporex Trade S.A. v Comdel Commodities Ltd
-
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......
-
1) Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc and Others v 1) Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunus 2) Maksat Askaruly Arip (First Appellant) 3) Shynar Dikhanbayeva (Second Appellant)
...and obviously inconvenient if it cannot be so issued. 27 Mr Head was able to point to authorities such as Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association v Thakur Shipping Co Ltd [1986] 2 Lloyds Rep 439 in which the claimants sought a declaration that, in the event of a number of contingencies oc......
-
Cross‐border asset protection: an offshore perspective
...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 insucientas a cause of action) followed in Siporex Trade SA vComdel Commodities Ltd [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep 428, QBD;......