[2025] EWHC 2126 (Comm)

As I found on the last ground, there is no such prospect of Charterers proving fraud on the basis of the facts pleaded in the draft amended Claim Form: in my judgment, the facts sought to be pleaded lack coherence and do not justify an inference of fraud.

On the papers placed before me, it seems to me that, in reliance on Mr Puria’s actual (alternatively, apparent) authority, Owners and Charterers entered into a Charterparty. Mr Puria was one of only two company directors. He used the company stamp to certify the Charterparty. He used his email address “[email protected]” in communications. He instructed the email address “[email protected]” to affix the stamp, which was done.

The Charterparty was subsequently performed. Throughout the course of the Charterparty communications took place between Owners and Charterers, with Mr Puria, and with “[email protected]” (Ashmi Parveen, an employee of Charterers who was “Manager Chartering”) and “[email protected]”. Charterers paid late and inconvenienced Owners on several occasions. Owners sought frequently to make Charterers pay the hire outstanding until eventually they ran out of patience and withdrew the Vessel. I do not understand what benefit Owners would hope to gain by entering into the fraud alleged. They have now spent significant time and funds trying to enforce against a relatively small outstanding hire debt.

Permission to amend is refused on this ground too.