Trafigura Pte Ltd and Another v Emirates General Petroleum Corporation
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE TEARE |
| Judgment Date | 04 November 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 3007 (Comm) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2009 Folio 350 |
| Date | 04 November 2010 |
[2010] EWHC 3007 (Comm)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Before: Mr Justice Teare
Case No: 2009 Folio 350
Mr R Bright And Mr J Khurshid (Instructed By Messrs Reed Smith Llp) Appeared On Behalf Of The Claimants
The Defendant did not appear and was unrepresented
Approved Judgment
Crown Copyright ©
This is an application by the claimants, Trafigura, for orders that the defendants, Emirates General Petroleum Corporation and Mr Al Midfa, are in contempt of court. The claimants have been represented by Mr Bright QC today. Neither the defendant nor Mr Al Midfa has appeared today.
2. The application is set out in a notice dated 12 October 2010. It firstly seeks permission for the application notice and supporting documentation to be served on the defendant and on Mr Al Midfa by alternative means. That application has been dealt with by Cooke J, who on 14 October made an order in which he gave the claimants permission to serve the application notice and supporting documentation, firstly, on the defendant by alternative means, which he then sets out, secondly, on Mr Midfa out of the jurisdiction at the offices of the defendant in Dubai, and, thirdly, for service on Mr Midfa by alternative means. They are set out.
3. There is evidence before the court in the form of the first affidavit of Lisa Jane Mason, that the application notice and the supporting documents have been served on the defendant and Mr Al Midfa in one of more of the ways permitted by Cooke J. In particular, the application notice and supporting documents have been served by email to Mr Al Midfa's email address. That was done on 19 October and also on the same date by airmail. In addition, the application notice and supporting documents were served by fax on 19 October late in the evening and attempts have also been made to deliver the application notice and supporting documents by courier to the defendant's address in Dubai.
4. It appears that on 26 October a local law firm in Abu Dhabi known as House of Justice instructed a courier to deliver the application notice and supporting documents to the premises of the defendant. It appears that the courier company did so, obtaining a signature indicating receipt of the documents.
5. I am told by Mr Bright and accept (though this must be put in an affidavit confirming this matter) that the documents have since been returned by the defendant to House of Justice, thereby indicating that they have been opened and a decision taken to return them to House of Justice. In those circumstances it appears that this application notice has been properly served on the defendant and on Mr Al Midfa.
6. Notwithstanding that, I must consider whether I am also satisfied that these methods of service have been sufficient to bring this application to the notice of the defendant and Mr Al Midfa. I am satisfied that they have been sufficient for that purpose. The email address of Mr Al Midfa is one which the documents in this case show has been used by him, and, as I have indicated already, the application notice and supporting documents were returned by the defendant to the House of Justice, the Abu Dhabi lawyers. I am therefore satisfied that the court can proceed to hear and determine the application which has been brought.
7. Returning to the application notice, it seeks an order that, upon the court being satisfied that the defendant has been guilty of contempt in failing to comply with an anti-suit injunction granted by Flaux J on 26 June 2009, and also with a worldwide freezing order granted by Tomlinson J on 11 February 2010, that the claimants have permission to issue a writ of sequestration against the property of the defendant and that Mr Al Midfa, the general manager of the defendant, be committed to Her Majesty's prison in Pentonville for such period from the date of his apprehension as the court considers appropriate.
8. The application notice goes on to set out the grounds upon which that order is sought. It identifies with particularity the acts of contempt which are alleged and it identifies the reasons why it is appropriate to make an order for committal against Mr Al Midfa. In particular, it is said that he is an officer of the defendant within the meaning of CPR Schedule 1, RSC order 45.5(i)(iii), also that he was at all material times and continues to be the general manager of the defendant, and, thirdly and importantly, it is said that he has actively participated in the breach by the defendant of the anti-suit injunction and also of the freezing order.
9. The application is supported by the first affidavit of Paul Antony Skeet, dated 12 October, and also by the affidavit of Lisa Jane Mason, dated 1 November 2010, to which I have already referred.
10. It is plain that the orders which it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Asia Islamic Trade Finance Fund Ltd v Drum Risk Management Ltd and Others
...relevant authorities, including Crystal Mews Limited v Metterick & Others [2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch) at paras.8 and 13, Trafigura Pte Ltd v Emirates General Petroleum Corporation [2010] EWHC 3007 (Comm), JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko [2011] EWHC 2908 (Ch), JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko (No 2) [2012] 1......
-
Alfa-Bank v Reznik
...relevant authorities, including Crystal Mews Limited v Metterick & Others [2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch) at paras.8 and 13, Trafigura Pte Ltd v Emirates General Petroleum Corporation [2010] EWHC 3007 (Comm), JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko [2011] EWHC 2908 (Ch), JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko (No 2) [2012] 1......
-
Alfa-Bank v Reznik
...Limited v Metterick & Others [2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch) at paras.8 and 13, Trafigura Pte Ltd v Emirates General Petroleum Corporation [2010] EWHC 3007 (Comm), JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko [2011] EWHC 2908 (Ch), JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko (No 2) [2012] 1 WLR 350 at paras.52 to 57 and 66 to 67, Temp......
-
Therium (UK) Holdings Ltd v Mr. Guy Brooke and Others
...Limited v Metterick & Others [2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch) at paras.8 and 13, Trafigura Pte Ltd v Emirates General Petroleum Corporation [2010] EWHC 3007 (Comm), JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko [2011] EWHC 2908 (Ch), JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko (No 2) [2012] 1 WLR 350 at paras.52 to 57 and 66 to 67, Temp......