ED&F Man Sugar Ltd v T&L Sugars Ltd & Ors

Mr T Young QC and Mr C Newman (instructed by Thomas Cooper LLP) for the Claimant Mr R Howe QC and Ms L Powel (instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP) for the Defendants Hearing dates: 8-10 February 2016 ____________________

iv) the conspiracy claim insofar as it is made against the two individual defendants.

The authorities relied on in support of this proposition are all examples of a party attempting simultaneously to advance two inconsistent cases in the same legal proceedings. None of them is an example of a claimant being prevented from pursuing mutually inconsistent cases against different parties in different proceedings. The authorities are therefore dealing with a different situation and are nothing to the point in this case.

It is then alleged that in fact SRB had decided that it was not going to pay the claimant and that the defendants were aware of this.

The fact that this is the breach of the Sale Contract which T&L is said to have induced is confirmed by subparagraph (vi) of paragraph 91, which cross-refers both to subparagraph (iii) and to paragraph 95. What is therefore alleged is (1) that, by entering into a sub-sale agreement on 18 or 19�March�2014 with T&L, SRB committed a breach of the Sale Contract, and (2) that T&L induced or procured that breach by helping to arrange for delivery of the shipment to Silvertown and by entering into the sub-sale agreement with SRB.