Triple Point Technology, Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd  EWHC 45 (TCC)30th Jan 2018
Acting for PTT (Thai oil and petrochemicals major), the defendant, in claims and counterclaims in the London Technology and Construction Courtrelating to the termination of a professional services contract to design and implement an integrated commodities trading and vessel charterparty management system across its businesses in Asia and the Gulf.
In Triple Point Technology Inc v PTT Public Co Ltd  EWHC 2178 (TCC) the claimant’s claim for unpaid invoices failed, and the defendant succeeded in recovering over $4 million on its counterclaim for negligence and breach of contract in the design of the system and project management.
The claimant – Triple Point Technology – was a company incorporated in the US which contracted with the defendant PTT, a Thai company, to provide it with a software system. The contract was subject to English law and to the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales, but the currency of the contract was US dollars. The defendant terminated the contract amidst a dispute concerning delay.
In Triple Point Technology, Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd  EWHC 45 (TCC) the court was required to determine issues concerning interest on damages and costs following the defendant’s successful counterclaim against the claimant.
The defendant had made a part 36 offer to settle on payment of $2 million from the claimant. The offer expired on 21 June 2016 without having been accepted. The defendant had, therefore, obtained a judgment substantially more advantageous than its offer. The court was required to determine the rate of interest on the defendant’s damages before and after the part 36 offer, the period of interest on damages, and the rate of interest on the defendant’s costs.
- Triple Point Technology, Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd  EWHC 45 (TCC)
- Triple Point Technology, Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd  EWHC 2178 (TCC)
Instructed by Watson, Farley & Williams LLP for the Defendant.
Related barrister: James Howells QC.
To view the full judgment please click here.
17 January 2018