...
首页> 外文期刊>Environmental Law Monthly >Buncefield - questions of economic loss
【24h】

Buncefield - questions of economic loss

机译:邦斯菲尔德-经济损失问题

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Shell UK v Total UK [2010] EWCA Civ 180 concerns the Buncefield explosion and involves a successful appeal by Shell against that element of the High Court ruling (see [2009] EWHC 540 (Comm) and ELM vol 18 issue 4) that losses sustained by it were purely economic losses and therefore irrecoverable. As a result of this Court of Appeal ruling, Total may be forced to pay out around £100 million to Shell to compensate Shell for losses arising out of the Buncefield explosion and fire in 2005. The Court of Appeal ruled that Shell is entitled to claim for loss of profits after fuel stored at the depot in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, was destroyed in the explosion, which occurred as a result of Total's negligence.
机译:Shell UK v Total UK [2010] EWCA Civ 180涉及Buncefield爆炸案,并且涉及Shell对高等法院裁决中的这一部分内容(见[2009] EWHC 540(Comm)和ELM第18卷第4期)成功上诉它纯属经济损失,因此无法挽回。根据该上诉法院的裁决,道达尔可能被迫向壳牌支付约1亿英镑,以赔偿壳牌因2005年邦斯菲尔德爆炸和大火造成的损失。上诉法院裁定壳牌有权提出索赔。由于Total的疏忽而在爆炸中销毁了储存在赫特福德郡赫默尔亨普斯特德仓库的燃料后的利润损失。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号