Like Rob, I think we need to be clear which element of causation (of benefit) we are talking about. The difficulty I am having with the decision is in being sure what the 'factual causation' position (ie the application of the 'but for' test) was on the facts of the case. Although Rob and Andy Summers have said that it was clear that, but for the repudiatory breach by the charterers, the owners would not have sold the vessel (at its high market value), that may be contradicted by Lord Clarke's point (referred to twice at paras 22 and 32 of his judgment) that the owners might have sold the vessel even if there had been no repudiatory breach. That is, irrespective of the breach, they might have sold the vessel with an ongoing charterparty. If factual causation is not satisfied, then plainly one ignores the sale of the vessel and the decision is clearly correct. But if, on the other hand, factual causation is satisfied (ie the ship would not have been sold but for the breach), I find the decision much more difficult to justify. In particular, it is hard to see that the sale of the ship would then be too indirectly related to the breach  (as with eg the shares in the Lavarack case); and I find it difficult to see any convincing analogy to the well-known exceptions where one ignores compensating benefits (insurance proceeds and benevolence).

On a separate and very sad note, members of this list may not have seen (there is an announcement on the Supreme Court's website) the very sad and shocking news that Lord Toulson died yesterday.     

Best wishes,

Andy

Professor Andrew Burrows QC (Hon), FBA, DCL

Professor of the Law of England,

All Souls College,

Oxford.