Shell Egypt West Manzala v Dana Gas Egypt Limited

Question: Discuss about theShell Egypt West Manzala v Dana Gas Egypt Limited. Answer: Introduction The case involves two parties, Shell Egypt and Centurion, where a breach of a contract due to termination of the contract happened. In the case, the two parties had entered happened on the joint gas exploration. The judgement was meant to determine whether Shell was rightfully to offer their termination, which happened through a letter which they wrote to Centurion. The controversy arose about the analysis on whether the innocent party had the justification of the termination of the contract[1]. On the judgement, Tomlinson J dismissed the appeal made by Shell and indicated that Shell had gave a wrong answer in accepting the repudiatory breach. The right to terminate is accepted on certain conditions and therefore proper analysis is required when one of the party in a contract terminates the cxcluded right of appeal - Arbitration Act 1996, sectionca In addition, the FIA contained a clause which stated: "The dispute shall be submitted to the arbitrators in such manner as they shall dee m appropriate and the decision of the majority of the arbitrators, rendered in writing, shall be final, conclusive and binding on the parties, and the judgment upon such decision may be entered in any court of a country having jurisdiction"[2]. The arbitrators issued an award, which held that Shell was not entitled to damages following the early termination of the FIA. Shell sought permission to appeal which was madeunder section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 of the section 69[3]. Gloster J held that the certain words, which appeared on the contract and they included "final, conclusive and binding" were misinterpreted and did not amount to an all through agreement and that the right to appeal had not been ruled out as the way Shell claimed[4]. She further held that, on the facts, the statutory criteria for giving permission to appeal had been satisfied. I think the judgement on the case was justified and therefore I agree with the ruling. First, the interpretation of the words used has to be in accordance with the context with they are being applied and not the dictionary meaning[5]. In addition, the date for the submission of the said letter by Shell were long overdue and therefore the court was justified to rule against their favor. Due to this I hold that I strong agree with the judgement offered on this case. Additionally,Shell had the perception that CTIP Acquisition had not yet been completed and this offered a weakness which led to the failure of the case which was brought forward. Bibliography: Wilhelm JM, 'Practical issues in dispute resolution in natural gas' (2016) 33(5) Natural Gas Electricity 1217 MacLachlan LD, 'Inside Pandoras box - essential elements of effective dispute resolution in the workplace' (2013) 10(2) Against the Grain Ononogbu I, 'Transformation of dispute resolution in Africa' (2015) 2(1) International Journal on Online Dispute Resolution