[2025] EWHC 2126 (Comm)

Fecha: 13-Ago-2025

Procedural history

Procedural history

Strike-Out Application

15.

On 20 September 2024, Owners entered a Respondent’s Notice and filed a skeleton argument seeking to have the claim struck out pursuant to section O.8.6 of the Commercial Court Guide on the basis that (a) that there was no supporting evidence filed with the claim; (b) there were no sufficient particulars to which Owners could respond; (c) insofar as the claim could be made out, it had no reasonable prospect of success; and (d) Charterers had participated in the arbitration, and therefore could not challenge the Award under s.72 of the 1996 Act.

16.

On 27 September 2024, Charterers filed a short reply skeleton argument, opposing Owners’ strike-out application on the basis that (a) Charterers did not participate in the reference; and (b) there was a real prospect of success on the basis of Mr Samuel’s evidence, as set out in his witness statement dated 26 September 2024. They requested that they be “directed to file particulars of its claim”. Mr Samuel’s witness statement, however, contained serious allegations of fraud against Owners which were not pleaded in the Claim Form and of which no material evidence had been provided, although those allegations had been foreshadowed in the Interim Response, several months earlier.

17.

Given the strict pleading requirement for allegations of fraud (see, e.g., Sofer v Swissindependent Trustees SA [2020] EWCA Civ 699, at [23] per Arnold LJ), Mr Samuel’s witness statement attempted to set out the primary facts from which Charterers submit an inference of dishonesty could be drawn. Those primary facts are set out in paragraph 2, where Mr Samuel sets out instances that he says evidence dishonest intention, fraud, and collusion involving Owners, Mr Puria, and another party called SPG Infrastructure (“SPG”) said to be run by Mr Puria. These are:

(a)

the absence of board approval, and the fact that Charterers did not carry any cargo on the Vessel;

(b)

that all transactions, including financial transactions, were between Owners, Mr Puria, and SPG;

(c)

the Vessel was delivered to SPG, rather than to Charterers;

(d)

the absence of required documents, such as a local authority clearance certificate;

(e)

the absence of board approval for SPG’s nomination for raising invoices and remittances;

(f)

Owners’ failure to verify SPG’s status, which would have disclosed that it was a partnership run by Mr Puria and not part of Charterers’ group of companies;

(g)

the absence of an amended fixture note in the name of SPG;

(h)

the Owner’s failure to take action against SPG;

(i)

the Vessel being deliberately idled, docked, anchored, or delayed for a time exceeding the stipulated time in the Charterparty; and

(j)

the failure to withdraw the Vessel at any earlier date in light of the non-payment of charges.

18.

On 1 October 2024, Owners responded with a short reply skeleton argument noting that any allegation of fraud had to be properly pleaded by amendment. They expressly stated that Charterers must apply to amend, and that Owners’ position was reserved in circumstances where a further application would be out of time. There was subsequent correspondence between the parties about the proper way forward.