Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Geoquip Marine Operations AG v Tower Resources Cameroon SA & Anor

[2023] EWCA Civ 304
A company (Geoquip) hired another (Tower) for a job in Cameroon, but the job was delayed because Tower didn't get the right permits and security. Geoquip sued for the extra costs from the delay. The judge said no, but a higher court said yes, because the contract meant Tower should pay those extra costs even if multiple things caused the delay, and Tower had agreed to that by accepting money even though they hadn't fulfilled all the requirements first.

Key Facts

  • Geoquip contracted with Tower to provide offshore geotechnical services in Cameroon.
  • Geoquip claimed an outstanding balance of US$610,091.68 (lump sum) and US$1,619,541.69 (standby charges) due to Tower's delays.
  • The delay was attributed to Tower's failure to secure a licence extension, permits, and security for Geoquip's vessel.
  • The High Court awarded Geoquip the lump sum but dismissed the claim for standby charges.
  • The Court of Appeal focused on whether Geoquip had a contractual right to standby charges under clauses 4.5 and 34.
  • The condition precedent in section 10.2 of the contract concerning the licence extension was waived by both parties.

Legal Principles

Contractual interpretation: Terms should be given their natural meaning within the context of the contract as a whole.

Court of Appeal judgment

Waiver of condition precedent: If a condition precedent is waived, the parties must be deemed to have intended that the other contract terms would apply according to their natural meaning.

Court of Appeal judgment

Concurrent causes: Where there are two or more concurrent, equally effective causes of an event, and only one engages the contractual provision in question, that provision is engaged.

FCA v. Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & Ors [2021] UKSC 1, [2021] AC 649 (SC)

Outcomes

The Court of Appeal allowed Geoquip's appeal.

The judge erred in law by failing to consider the effect of the waived condition precedent. The Court of Appeal held Geoquip was entitled to standby charges based on its interpretation of clauses 4.5 and 34.

Geoquip's application to amend its notice of appeal was refused.

The amendment sought to introduce a new argument on causation that differed from the case presented to the High Court and would require a new trial.

Geoquip was awarded an additional US$1,619,541.69 in standby charges.

The Court found that Tower's failure to secure a licence extension and to provide security were independent concurrent causes of the delay, triggering Geoquip's right to standby charges under clause 4.5.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.