Tonzip Maritime Ltd v Coral Energy Pte Ltd
[2024] EWHC 1970 (Comm)
The Owners of the "Christos Theo" v The Owners of the "Aliki"
6 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 2106 (Admlty)
High Court
Two ships almost collided. One ship's engine might have malfunctioned. The court ordered the ship's owners to hand over more information because they weren't being fully honest. The court also said the other ship's owners didn't need more information, and the dishonest ship's owners have to pay the other ship's legal costs.
Key Facts
- •Near miss incident between the "Christos Theo" and the "Aliki"
- •Alleged malfunction of the "Christos Theo"'s main engine leading to failed attempts to reverse and subsequent grounding.
- •Dispute over the cause of the engine malfunction and the crew's actions.
- •Defendants' application for specific disclosure of documents related to the engine's history and the incident.
- •Claimants' application for further information regarding the defendants' particulars of claim.
- •Case management issue concerning the framing of questions for expert marine engineers.
Legal Principles
Prima facie case standard for disclosure applications.
Civil Procedure Rules
Relevance of documents to the issue of whether a malfunction occurred, not just apportionment of liability.
Civil Procedure Rules
Disclosure should not be postponed pending further pleadings.
Civil Procedure Rules
Specific disclosure is appropriate where there is a strong suggestion of withheld relevant evidence.
Civil Procedure Rules
"Cards on the table" approach to pleadings, but further information should not amount to cross-examination.
Civil Procedure Rules, Andrew Baker J's comments on formulaic pleadings, Rule 61.4, Practice Direction paragraph 4
Outcomes
Defendants' application for specific disclosure granted in almost all respects.
Claimants' responses lacked candour and transparency, and the defendants presented strong evidence suggesting relevant documents were withheld. The court found the defendants' evidence to be more compelling regarding the likelihood of further documents existing.
Claimants' application for further information refused.
The application was deemed argumentative and amounted to cross-examination; the defendants' pleadings were considered sufficient.
Defendants' proposed wording for expert questions approved.
The wording was considered appropriate despite addressing a matter of fact, as expert input was needed.
Defendants awarded costs, subject to detailed assessment, with an interim payment of £70,000 from the claimants.
The court found in favour of the defendants on the main issues.
Similar Cases
SFL Ace 2 Company Inc. v DCW Management Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 3074 (Comm)
Boluda Towage Rotterdam BV & Ors v Elise Tanschiffahrt KG & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1329 (Admlty)
Barclays Bank PLC v Scott Dylan & Ors
[2024] EWHC 881 (Ch)
Stonegate Farmers Limited & Ors v Michael Richard John Kent & Ors
[2024] EWHC 3051 (Ch)