Gold Coast Ltd. v Caja De Ahorros Del Mediterraneo & Ors, Court of Appeal - Commercial Court, May 02, 2001, [2001] EWHC 504 (Comm)

Reporting Judge: [2001] EWHC 504 (Comm)

President: Gold Coast Ltd. v Caja De Ahorros Del Mediterraneo & Ors

Linked as:

Extract

Gold Coast Ltd. v Caja De Ahorros Del Mediterraneo & Ors, Court of Appeal - Commercial Court, May 02, 2001, [2001] EWHC 504 (Comm)

Case No: 2000 Folio Nos. 901 and 1296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

COMMERCIAL COURT

The Law Courts

Mold, CH7 6NB

Date: 2 May 2001

B e f o r e :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE THOMAS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Andrew Popplewell QC and Mr Steven Berry (instructed by Watson, Farley & Williams) for the Claimant

Mr Mark Howard QC and Mr Stephen Phillips (instructed by Holman Fenwick & Willan) for the Defendants

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT: APPROVED BY THE COURT FOR HANDING DOWN (SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS)

Mr Justice Thomas:

1. There are before the court applications for summary judgment in an action commenced by the Claimant (the Buyers) against the Defendant Spanish Banks (the Banks) under seven refund guarantees in identical form given by the Banks in respect of instalments paid under a shipbuilding contract entered into between the Buyers and Naval Gijõn, SA (the Builders). The Buyers claimed under their shipbuilding contract with the Builders that, because of delay in the construction of the vessel, they were entitled to declare the contract in default and recover the instalments paid by them to the Builders. Their right was disputed by the Builders and the matter has been referred to arbitration. The Buyers claim in these proceedings that they are now entitled to reclaim from the Banks under the refund guarantees for instalments paid; the Banks dispute their entitlement. The Buyers and the Banks each sought summary judgment against the other in applications before the court.

2. When the applications came on for hearing in January 2001, the issues before the Court turned purely on questions of construction; for those purposes, as all the material facts were before the court, the applications were in effect a trial of the action. However, as I was immediately resuming the conduct of an enquiry, I indicated that I was unable to give judgment for sometime; in early February, I was told that the Banks wished for a further hearing and to raise a further ...

See the full content of this document