[2025] EWHC 2089 (Comm)

On 25th March 2024, the Charterers issued their claim form against the First and Second Defendants.

The Charterers base their claim on the Charterparty, which they defined as “a time charter on an amended Shelltime 4 form, contained in or evidenced by a fixture re-cap dated 25 March 2022”, which I take to be the Recap (see also para. 6 of Ms Barthet’s first witness statement).

The Charterers’ claim is for damages in the total sum of approximately US$12.6 million by reason of the Defendants’ alleged repudiatory breach of the Charterparty by reason of the wrongful withdrawal of MT Midvolga 3, MT Kupava and MT Lada from the Charterers’ service and by reason of the Defendants’ repudiatory breach in failing to deliver MT Midvolga 2 into the Charterers’ service by 10th June 2022 (being the extended laycan for the vessel under the Charterparty).

On 16th August 2024, the Charterers obtained the Court’s permission to serve the claim form on the Defendants by alternative means. In her witness statement in support of this application, Ms Barthet stated at para. 24 that “Pursuant to CPR r. 6.33(2B)(b) and (c) the Claimant is permitted to serve the Claim Form out of the jurisdiction without the need for permission of the Court on the basis that the claim is in respect of a contract which contains a term to the effect that the Court shall have jurisdiction and/or the claim is in respect of a contract falling within sub-paragraph (b)”.