Guest blogpost from James M Turner QC, Quadrant Chambers
In Priyanka Shipping Ltd v Glory Bulk Carriers Pte Limited (“The Lory”)  EWHC 2804 (Comm), David Edwards QC (sitting as a Judge of the Commercial Court) dismissed a common law claim for negotiating damages for the breach of a memorandum of agreement (MOA) for the sale of a ship.
The decision is one of the first to grapple with the recent Supreme Court decision in One Step (Support) Ltd v Morris-Garner  UKSC 20,  AC 649. In that case Lord Reed’s majority judgment issued a corrective to jurisprudence which, since the House of Lords’ decision in AG v Blake  1 AC 268, had seen the award of negotiating damages at common law “on a wider and less certain basis” than had been the case before Blake.
What are “negotiating damages”? Negotiating
such a sum of money as might reasonably have been demanded by [the
claimant] from [the defendant] as a quid pro quo for [permitting the
continuation of the breach of covenant or other invasion of right]”:
). They are “assessed
by reference to a hypothetical negotiation between the parties, for
such amount as might reasonably have been demanded by the claimant
for releasing the defendants from their obligations”
damages are commonly encountered in two situations: so-called user
in tort; and damages awarded under Lord
arises where the defendant has used or invaded the claimant’s
property without causing direct financial loss: an example commonly
given is riding a horse without permission. The defendant, having
taken something for nothing, is required to pay a reasonable fee for
the use made of the claimant’s property.
historically, the Common Law Courts could only award damages for past
breaches, i.e., where the cause of action was complete at the date
the writ was issued. For the future, litigants had to look to the
Courts of Equity for orders for specific performance and injunction
etc. However, the latter had no power to award damages. That
inconvenience was remedied by Lord Cairns’ Act 1858, section 2 of
which (now s. 50 of the Senior Courts Act 1981) allowed the Courts of
Equity to award damages as well as or instead of an injunction.
may be awarded under Lord Cairns’ Act for past breaches, but are
assessed on the same basis as damages at common law.
in lieu of an injunction for future breaches, on the other hand,
cannot be assessed on the same basis as damages at common law, as by
definition such damages cannot be awarded at common law. Instead,
negotiating damages may be awarded.
As will be seen, the issue in The
was whether negotiating damages were available at common law for past
breaches of the relevant term of the MOA.
The Defendant Seller sold the Claimant Buyer its vessel on terms
that included clause 19, by which the Buyer undertook that it would
not trade the vessel and would sell it only for demolition. However,
the Buyer traded the vessel. By the time of the trial, the vessel
was completing discharge under her second fixture and was fixed for a
third. The Seller claimed damages for or an injunction to restrain
breach of clause 19 of the MOA (or both).
The Judge awarded an injunction restraining future trading of the
vessel (expressly including the third fixture). Damages could in
principle be claimed for the first and second fixtures, but –
because they were now in the past – only at common law.
Judge noted that, once the vessel had been sold and delivered, the
Seller no longer had any proprietary interest in it, “no
right or ability to use the Vessel to trade, and no right or ability
to profit from the Vessel’s use … ”.
Although the Seller was entitled to be placed in the position it
would have been if the contract had not been breached, “it
is not obvious how any further trading of the Vessel by the Buyer …
could cause the Seller any loss.”
for this reason that no conventional damages claim had been made, but
only a claim for a hypothetical release fee. The “critical
so far as that claim was concerned, was whether the Seller could
bring itself within [95(10)] of Lord Reed’s judgment in One
show that “ …
the loss suffered by the claimant is appropriately measured by
reference to the economic value of the right which has been breached,
considered as an asset.”
Reed had made clear that “that
such an approach is not available in the case of a breach of any
contractual right, but only where:
the breach of contract results in the loss of a valuable asset
created or protected by the right which was infringed.”
paragraph implicitly regards the relevant asset not as the
contractual right itself but as something else, a valuable asset
“created or protected by the right”.” 
that Lord Reed had in mind were essentially proprietary rights and
analogous rights such as intellectual property and rights of
confidence . The Judge rejected the Seller’s submission that
its right under clause 19 was within the same class . The Judge
regarded the right under clause 19 as more closely analogous to the
non-compete obligation at issue in One
which Lord Reed did not consider fell within “the
category of cases where negotiating damages were available as a
measure of the Seller’s loss”
claim therefore failed. The Judge did, however, grant permission to
appeal. We may not, therefore, have heard the last word on this
James M. Turner QC appeared for the Buyers in this case on the instruction of Alex Andrews and Claire Don of Reed Smith.