The legal battle between Associated British Ports and its tenant of the Immingham Oil terminal has returned to the Court of Appeal.
In January, the court backed a ruling by the chancellor of the High Court striking out competition claims brought by the tenant, Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd (HOTT), a joint venture between oil companies Total and Conoco.
Now HOTT is appealing another crucial preliminary ruling in the case, in which Vos J found that ABP intended to occupy the premises for business purposes under s30(1)(g) of the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act.
In 2009, after negotiations for extended leases failed, ABP served notices on HOTT to terminate each of four leases covering the jetty, onshore oil depot, substantial pipe and oil storage works and other land that comprise the Immingham Oil Terminal (IOT) at the port of Immingham on the south bank of the river Humber.
ABP relied on section 30(1)(g) to terminate the leases on the basis that it intends to occupy the premises for the purposes of carrying on its own import and export of oil business there with a view to ensuring continuity of supply to Total and Conoco as well as exploring the supply of oil to other third parties.
HOTT launched proceedings for the grant of new tenancies, disputing whether ABP intended to occupy the IOT itself. That issue was determined in ABP’s favour by Vos J, but now HOTT is challenging that decision.
It says that ABP has carried out no costings, no engineering or other studies, and no financial appraisals, has no customer commitments in place and has submitted no proposals to its board. As a result, it claims that ABP has not proved an intention to carry out its own business there.
The legal battle between Associated British Ports and its tenant of the Immingham Oil terminal has returned to the Court of Appeal. In January, the court backed a ruling by the chancellor of the High Court striking out competition claims brought by the tenant, Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd (HOTT), a joint venture between oil companies Total and Conoco. Now HOTT is appealing another crucial preliminary ruling in the case, in which Vos J found that ABP intended to occupy the premises for business purposes under s30(1)(g) of the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act. In 2009, after negotiations for extended leases failed, ABP served notices on HOTT to terminate each of four leases covering the jetty, onshore oil depot, substantial pipe and oil storage works and other land that comprise the Immingham Oil Terminal (IOT) at the port of Immingham on the south bank of the river Humber. ABP relied on section 30(1)(g) to terminate the leases on the basis that it intends to occupy the premises for the purposes of carrying on its own import and export of oil business there with a view to ensuring continuity of supply to Total and Conoco as well as exploring the supply of oil to other third parties. HOTT launched proceedings for the grant of new tenancies, disputing whether ABP intended to occupy the IOT itself. That issue was determined in ABP’s favour by Vos J, but now HOTT is challenging that decision. It says that ABP has carried out no costings, no engineering or other studies, and no financial appraisals, has no customer commitments in place and has submitted no proposals to its board. As a result, it claims that ABP has not proved an intention to carry out its own business there.
