0191 232 0283
0191 261 6956
info@srflegal.co.uk
Follow us
    • About
      • SRF TODAY
      • OUR TEAM
      • CAREERS
      • CONTACT & LOCATIONS
    • Commercial
      • CORPORATE AND COMMERCIAL
      • COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
      • DISPUTE RESOLUTION
      • DEBT RECOVERY
      • EMPLOYMENT LAW
      • INSOLVENCY
      • REGULATORY LAW
      • FINANCIAL CRIME
    • Private Client
      • FAMILY LAW
      • WILLS, TRUSTS AND PROBATE
      • MOTORING OFFENCES
      • BUYING AND SELLING PROPERTY
    • News & Events
      • FIRM NEWS
      • EVENTS & SEMINARS
      • SRF NEST
    1. Home
    2. Legal Bulletin
    3. High Court punishes oil prospectors for breach of injunction

    High Court punishes oil prospectors for breach of injunction


    Published on: 21st August 2017

    Background

    In Pan Petroleum AJE Limited v Winka Folawiyo Petroleum Co Limited & others, the parties were subject to a joint operating agreement formed in 2007 concerning oil exploration and drilling off the southern coast of Nigeria. This particular case concerns the granting of Oil Mining Lease No. 113, where wells 4 and 5 are currently operational, and wells 6 and 7 are ready for development.  The dispute centres on wells 6 and 7, and whether their development has been properly approved.

    Pan Petroleum successfully obtained an injunction which prevented the defendants from exercising their rights under the lease, in respect of wells 6 and 7, to exclude Pan Petroleum from participating in, or voting at, meetings.

    On 23 January 2017, the defendants held a meeting and gave Pan Petroleum a mere three minutes’ notice, and thus effectively excluding Pan Petroleum from attending or voting.  Pan Petroleum therefore argued that the conduct of the defendants amounted to a breach of the injunction, and brought an application that the defendants be held in contempt of court.

    High Court

    At the High Court, Justice Knowles was clear that the defendants’ actions would fall within the definition of the injunction in terms of Pan Petroleum being excluded from the meeting, but he had to consider whether this actually related specifically to wells 6 and 7, and thus would constitute a breach of the injunction.

    The defendants argued that because in respect of had a narrower meaning in the lease, this same narrow meaning must be applied to the alleged breaching of the injunction.  The court however disagreed, stating that “it is the terms of the injunction which matter”.  If the injunction is wider than the defendants feels Pan Petroleum is entitled to, then the defendants should apply to vary it.  This was not the case here.

    Outcome

    The court stated that the resolutions passed at the meeting related to approval of budgets for the wells, rather than approving the actual planned work on the well.  However, on a ‘natural meaning’ of the words, excluding Pan Petroleum from a meeting relating to the budget of a well is exercising rights ‘in respect of’ that well (which was also prohibited under the injunction).

    The court held that the meeting was therefore a breach of the injunction, and that the defendants were in contempt of court.  The judge invited further submissions as to the consequences of that contempt.

    For more information please contact Tim Berg.


    TAGS: Dispute Resolution

    MORE

    • High Court grants relief to defendant for non-attendance
    • High Court punishes oil prospectors for breach of injunction
    • How much is it actually worth?
    • Modifying restrictive covenants – a potential life-line for developers?
    • The court cannot extend time to pay agreed settlements
    • The court criticises inconsistent arguments and excessive costs.
    • Lease assignments and requests for landlord’s consent – administrators and assignees beware
    • Business Purchasers Beware – to Due Diligence and Beyond
    • Disclaimer – what happens to the lease when one of the tenants is made bankrupt?
    • Modifying restrictive covenants – a potential life-line for developers?
    • Cosmetic Warriors’ war on valuing of shares
    • Directors’ liability: how far does it go?
    • Administrators: are you settled in the knowledge of the powers available to you?
    • Information Commissioner’s Annual Report and Financial Statements 2016/17
    • Bombarding the court with applications to vary
    • Judicial reviews – the importance of playing by the rules
    • The perils of property with Japanese knotweed
    • Is that in the best interest of beneficiaries?
    • Are you going to be left high and dry? – Asset stripping to avoid paying
    • PPI Compensation: the IVA or the individual
    • Failure to mediate? Be prepared to pay for it!
    • Understanding adjudication and arbitration: Clarity leads to confusion in enforcement
    • Understanding adjudication and arbitration: Fast paced decision making
    • Understanding adjudication and arbitration: Ensuring jurisdiction
    • Understanding adjudication and arbitration: Has there been serious irregularity?
    • Understanding adjudication and arbitration: Removal of an arbitrator
    • Operation LINDEN: Unsolicited Marketing Communications
    • Lease assignments and requests for landlord’s consent – administrators and assignees beware 
    • Worker fined for stealing vulnerable people’s personal information
    • BREAKING NEWS: Uber has lost their appeal

    AUTHOR

    Tim Berg

    PARTNER

    Head of Dispute Resolution and Insolvency

    Tel: 0191 211 1502

    Email: Send Message

    CONTACT US

  • 4 Mosley Street
    Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 1DE
    Tel: 0191 232 0283 Fax: 0191 261 6956
    Email: info@srflegal.co.uk
    DX: 61037 Newcastle

    Short Richardson and Forth Solicitors Limited is a private limited company registered in England and Wales under company No. 10572065, authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority No. 637150.

    Short Richardson and Forth Solicitors Limited is a private limited company constituted and run in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act 2006. The term “partner” has been used to denote individual senior solicitors employed by Short Richardson and Forth Solicitors Limited.

    Website Privacy Policy

    Complaints Procedure

    • ABOUT
    • SRF Today
    • Our Team
    • Careers
    • Contacts & Location
    • COMMERCIAL
    • Corporate and Commercial
    • Commercial Property
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Debt Recovery
    • Employment Law
    • Insolvency
    • Regulatory Law
    • Financial Crime
    • PRIVATE CLIENTS
    • Family Law
    • Wills, Trusts and Probate
    • Motoring offences
    • Buying and Selling Property
    • NEWS & EVENTS
    • Firm News
    • Events & Seminars
    • SRF Nest