Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation & Ors

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, limiting monetary relief to $30,261.70 plus interest. It awarded the claimant its appeal costs against Pakistan National Shipping Corporation and Mr Mehra, subject to leave before enforcing the order against Mr Mehra and assessment under the Legal Aid Scheme. The court declined exceptional or additional relief concerning the Part 36 offer, including indemnity costs or a higher interest rate. The trial costs order remained unchanged. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

Standard Chartered Bank appealed from the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, before Mr Justice Toulson. The litigation involved Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, Seaways Maritime Limited, Oakprime International Limited, Arvind Mehra and SGS United Kingdom Limited as Part 20 Defendant.

The supplied judgment records the Court of Appeal’s operative orders rather than detailed reasons. The appeal concerned the extent of monetary relief, appeal costs, the consequences of a Part 36 offer, the costs position of Mr Mehra and permission for a further appeal concerning mitigation of damage.

Lord Justice Potter gave the judgment of the court. The supplied transcript contains a single operative judgment and no separate reasoning from the other members of the constitution.

1. Disposition. The appeal was allowed in part as against Pakistan National Shipping Corporation. The relief was limited to $30,261.70 plus interest. The transcript does not explain how that amount was calculated.
2. Appeal costs. As against Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, Standard Chartered Bank was awarded 100 per cent of its costs of the appeal.
3. Part 36 offer. The court declined to make any exceptional or additional order in relation to the Part 36 offer. This included declining an order for indemnity costs or an increased rate of interest.
4. Mr Mehra. Standard Chartered Bank was awarded its costs of the appeal against Mr Mehra. Enforcement of that order required leave of the court, and Mr Mehra’s costs were to be assessed under the appropriate provisions of the Legal Aid Scheme.
5. Further appeal. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused. The court observed that their Lordships could decide whether to review the principles of mitigation of damage in the context of other petitions concerning earlier decisions.

The orders for the costs of the trial before Mr Justice Toulson were left unchanged.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2001] EWCA Civ 225, the appeal was allowed in part. The court made orders concerning monetary relief, appeal costs and the Part 36 offer, and refused permission for a further appeal.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court: The appeal was from the judgment of Mr Justice Toulson. The citation of that judgment is not stated in the judgment supplied. The trial costs orders were left standing.