- Case indexes > Environmental > Environmental decision-making > Public interest in environment
- Case indexes > Environmental > Minerals and energy > Minerals, oil and gas
- Case indexes > Commercial > Administrative Law > Government Contracting
- Case indexes > Commercial > Civil Remedies > Costs > Attribution of Costs
- Case indexes > Commercial > Public international law > Transnational and international dispute resolution
EL|Minerals|oil and gas|Transnational and international dispute resolution|Public interest in environment|Attribution of Costs|Government Contracting
- Case summary
In this Court of Appeal case, the court determined who breached the contract of oil supply between the appellant and the respondent. The contract ran into a deadlock after three deliveries of the product when the appellants refused to accept one of the respondents’ deliveries upon presentation. The reason given for the resultant stalemate was that the product was not of the specification ordered.
The court below had penalised the appellant for unnecessarily breaching a contract. The appellant felt aggrieved and appealed to seek an overturn of the trial court’s judgment entered in favour of the respondents.
The Court of Appeal thus determined if there was a variation in the contract, when did that occur and also what did the variation entail.
In response, the Court of Appeal held that there was nothing on record to persuade the court that the respondent product was not of the specification ordered. The court thus maintained the decision of the court below. However, the Court of Appeal noted that the cost granted in the court below was exorbitant. In the end, the court dismissed the appellant case, but the costs awarded in the court below was accordingly varied.
This document is 781.7 KB. Do you want to load it?