Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Company and Others

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Year1995
Date1995
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX

Start Your 3-day 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

vLex

Start Your 3-day 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

vLex

Start Your 3-day 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

vLex

Start Your 3-day 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

vLex

Start Your 3-day 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

vLex

Start Your 3-day 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

vLex
8 cases
  • MP-Bilt Pte Ltd v Oey Widarto
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • March 26, 1999
    ... ... [1984] 1 WLR 137 and more recently in Stocznia Gdanska v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 All ER ... effort and make a myriad of contracts with others and consequent subcontracts against his promise ... The company did not sue for damages and so the action must be ... ...
  • Molestina v Ponton [QBD (Comm)]
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • May 16, 2001
  • HSBC Bank Plc v Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (UK) Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • May 16, 2002
    ... ... remedies for breach of contract can be found in Stocznia Gdanska SA v. Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574 at ... ...
  • Stocznia Gdanska S.a. v Latvian Shipping Company and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • May 8, 2001
    ...6ARE THE YARD ENTITLED AS A MINIMUM AGAINST THE TORT DEFENDANTS THE SUMS FOR WHICH THEY HAVE OBTAINED JUDGMENT AGAINST LATREEFERS[1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep 592. 86 On 29 April 1995, the Yard began what was in effect treated as the second action claiming the amounts due on the keel laying instalme......
  • Get Started for Free
3 books & journal articles
  • Anticipatory Repudiation
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Contracts. Third Edition Performance and Breach
    • August 4, 2020
    ...or unlawful, thus providing 60 See, for example, McCowan v McKay , above note 31. 61 Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co , [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 228 (CA), rev’d on other grounds [1998] 1 WLR 574 (HL). 62 See GH Treitel, “Aff‌irmation after Repudiatory Breach” (1998) 114 Law Q Rev 22 fo......
  • Anticipatory Repudiation
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Law of Contracts. Second Edition Performance and breach
    • August 29, 2012
    ...failed to comply with 60 See, for example, McCowan v. McKay , above note 31. 61 Stocznia Gdanska SA v. Latvian Shipping Co. , [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 228 (C.A.), rev’d on other grounds [1998] 1 W.L.R. 574 (H.L.). 62 See G.H. Treitel, “Aff‌irmation after Repudiatory Breach” (1998) 114 Law Q. R......
  • Anticipatory Repudiation
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Law of Contracts Part Four
    • September 1, 2005
    ...of the contract by the 60 See, for example, McCowan v. McKay , above note 31. 61 Stocznia Gdanska SA v. Latvian Shipping Co., [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 228 (C.A.), rev’d on other grounds [1998] 1 W.L.R. 574 (H.L.). 62 See G.H. Treitel, “Aff‌irmation after Repudiatory Breach” (1998) 114 Law Q. R......

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