Tuesday, 12 January 2010

Trafigura Lost!

I have just been told unequivocally that Trafigura lost their attempt to seal from public access papers from the case of Looney v Trafigura Beheer BV. 

Clearly there is still no proof that this is so and there won’t be until one of the parties speaks or until the applications under CPR Part 5.4C(1)(a) have been processed.

I hope my informant is correct!

Previous posts are (oldest first):

Trafigura, Carter-Ruck and Looney [@17.12 Sorry, had problems with this link.  Should be OK now]

http://calumcarr.blogspot.com/2010/01/silence-on-trafigura.html

http://calumcarr.blogspot.com/2010/01/trafigura-gag-silence-goes-on.html

http://calumcarr.blogspot.com/2010/01/trafigura-update.html

http://calumcarr.blogspot.com/2010/01/trafigura-why.html

http://calumcarr.blogspot.com/2010/01/trafigura-next-steps.html

http://calumcarr.blogspot.com/2010/01/trafigura-two-emails-one-reply-no.html

http://calumcarr.blogspot.com/2010/01/trafigura-obsession.html

http://calumcarr.blogspot.com/2010/01/trafigura-v-looney.html

3 comments:

  1. Apparently the Trafigura argument for sealing the papers was that they included confidential information that Looney copied/printed while he was in their building/on their network which was completely irrelevant to the contractual dispute.
    The claimed analogy would be of a plumber and client disagreeing about the bill and the plumber including in his statement of claim photographs he took while in the house suggesting that the client was having an affair/evading tax or somesuch.
    Without specific facts, we cannot tell whether either party was being reasonable, outrageous or something in between.
    I am intrigued at how the losses on such a dispute by a training consultant could reach six million.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for this information and balance. It is very easy, probably too easy, to take the side of Looney because his case is against Trafigura.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous

    The Guardian states that "The claim says Looney was hired to rectify management problems and mistakes at a fee of £3m a year for three years."

    I imagine the claim for £6m comes from this £3m/y fee. Of course, we don't know if this is correct.

    ReplyDelete