The Owners of the "Christos Theo" v The Owners of the "Aliki"
[2024] EWHC 2106 (Admlty)
Tonzip Maritime Ltd v Coral Energy Pte Ltd
29 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1970 (Comm)
High Court
Two companies argued over a shipping contract. One company wanted more information about the ship's condition, but the judge said that information wasn't needed for the case and it was too late to ask for it. The judge did want some clarification on whether all necessary information had been shared, though.
Key Facts
- •Tonzip Maritime Ltd (Owners) claimed damages against Coral Energy Pte Ltd (Charterers) for repudiatory breach of a voyage charterparty.
- •The dispute centered on the Owners' refusal to load a cargo due to sanctions concerns.
- •Charterers sought specific disclosure of documents relating to the vessel's fuel oil purifiers and related issues.
- •Owners opposed the application, arguing the disclosure was irrelevant to the pleaded issues and would delay the trial.
- •The application was made pursuant to paragraphs 17.1 and/or 18.1 of CPR Practice Direction 57AD.
- •The trial was scheduled for October 17, 2024.
Legal Principles
Disclosure must be limited to documents relevant to the factual issues that would arise for decision at trial, as identified in the pleadings.
Harrods Ltd v Times Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 294
When considering the adequacy of compliance with Extended Disclosure or whether to vary the Extended Disclosure Order, disclosure must be directed to the issues in dispute on the statements of case.
Lonestar Communications Corporation LLC v Kaye [2020] EWHC 1890 (Comm) and Curtiss v Zurich Insurance Plc [2021] EWHC 1999 (TCC)
An order for Extended Disclosure must be reasonable and proportionate, considering factors like the nature and complexity of issues, importance of the case, likelihood of documents having probative value, and the need for expeditious handling.
CPR PD 57AD, paragraph 6.4
Outcomes
The Charterers' application for specific disclosure was dismissed.
The requested documents were irrelevant to the pleaded issues. The application was deemed a fishing expedition and granting it would have caused undue delay to the trial. The delay in making the application was also considered inexcusable.
The Owners were ordered to provide a witness statement clarifying their disclosure compliance, particularly regarding a ‘Claim File’ not mentioned in their disclosure certificate.
To address concerns raised about the completeness of the Owners' disclosure.
Similar Cases
SFL Ace 2 Company Inc. v DCW Management Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 3074 (Comm)
Southeaster Maritime Ltd v Trafigura Maritime Logistics Pte Ltd mv "Aquafreedom"
[2024] EWHC 255 (Comm)
Salim Moosa & Ors v Karim Issa Mawji
[2024] EWHC 335 (Ch)
Alta Trading UK Ltd (formerly known as Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) & Ors v Peter Miles Bosworth & Ors
[2024] EWHC 574 (Comm)