Further Clarification on The “Atlantik Confidence”

Nick Parton would like to clear up a misunderstanding circulating about the Court of Appeal judgment in this case.

It is being said that the Court of Appeal specifically held that a P & I Club guarantee is the only alternative now allowed to a payment of cash into court in order to set up a limitation fund. The relevant paragraph of Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s judgment actually said:

51. “For the above reasons, I would allow this appeal and declare that, as a matter of law, Owners are entitled to constitute a limitation fund under the 1976 Convention, by means of the production of a guarantee. As agreed prior to the hearing by all relevant parties, if and so far as is necessary, detailed consideration of the adequacy of the LOU offered by The Standard Club Europe Limited, will be dealt with by the Admiralty Court.”

The position therefore is that a guarantee issued by entities other than a P & I Club could also potentially be used to set up a limitation fund in England.

Tokyo District Court permits Limitation Fund constituted by P&I Club Letter

The Tokyo District Court permitted MOL to constitute the limitation fund by means of Japan P&I’s letter of guarantee with respect to the total loss of the “MOL Comfort” case.

 

Related: Court of Appeal’s decision in the “Atlantik Confidence” allows the constitution of a limitation fund by means of a letter of guarantee.

Case Summary: The “Griffon” 10 December 2013

Case Summary: The “Griffon”  10 December 2013

Sellers accepted the Buyers’ conduct as a repudiation of the MOA and/or cancelled the MOA.  Buyers accepted that their failure was a repudiatory breach. It was held that on a proper construction of clause 2 and clause 13 of the NSF93, Sellers are entitled to claim the deposit separately and in addition to their actual loss suffered as long as their right to the deposit has accrued before the contract was terminated.

Read More