White Rock Corporation v Middle Volga: Jurisdiction and appeals in commercial disputes

In White Rock Corporation Ltd v Middle Volga Shipping Company & Anor [2025] EWHC 2746 (Comm), Peter MacDonald Eggers KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, addressed several consequential matters arising from his earlier judgement allowing the First Defendant's jurisdiction challenge under CPR rule 11(1). The subsequent determination, handed down on 24 October 2025, clarifies important procedural considerations regarding costs, applications for permission to appeal, and time limits for filing appellant's notices.

The dispute centred on three interconnected issues. First, the quantum of costs to be awarded following the successful jurisdiction challenge. The First Defendant sought summary assessment of £78,850.25, comprising solicitors' fees, disbursements including Russian legal fees, and costs relating to the consequential issues themselves. The Claimant, whilst not disputing the First Defendant's entitlement to costs as the successful party, provided no substantive submissions on quantum. The court found the costs reasonable and proportionate, summarily assessing them at the full amount claimed.

The second issue concerned the Claimant's application for permission to appeal. The First Defendant contended this application was made out of time, citing CPR rule 52.3(2)(a), which requires applications for permission to appeal to be made at the hearing where the decision was reached or at any adjournment of that hearing. Central to this argument was the interpretation of McDonald v Rose [2019] EWCA Civ 4, which establishes that dealing with consequential matters in writing does not constitute a formal adjournment of the decision hearing. The court agreed with this analysis, finding that the informal arrangement to deal with consequential issues on paper failed to create the necessary adjournment. Consequently, the judge concluded he lacked jurisdiction to determine the permission application.

Had jurisdiction existed, the court would have refused permission on substantive grounds. The proposed grounds of appeal challenged the assessment of evidence and the application of principles from Kaefer, rather than alleging any misinterpretation of legal principles. The court noted that challenging a decision based on assessment of factual evidence faces a more onerous test than appeals on questions of law or construction. The judge had found that even limiting examination to the recap and Q88 forms alone would have led to the conclusion that North Global, not Middle Volga, was the charterers' counterparty—a finding sufficient to sustain the jurisdiction challenge regardless of other considerations.

The third matter involved the time for filing an appellant's notice. The Claimant sought what it characterised as a direction under CPR rule 52.12(2)(a) for filing within 14 days of the permission decision, arguing this was not an extension application but merely a timetabling direction. The First Defendant maintained the standard 21-day period under CPR rule 52.12(2)(b) had already expired on 28 August 2025, making this a belated extension application subject to the Denton three-stage test.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction to grant any extension, as CPR rule 52.12(2)(a) only permits the lower court to extend time at the decision hearing or an adjournment thereof. Since no formal adjournment occurred, this jurisdiction was unavailable. However, the judge indicated that had jurisdiction existed, the extension would have been granted. Applying Denton principles, whilst the breach might be characterised as significant, it resulted from an understandable misapprehension about procedural requirements. Crucially, no prejudice accrued to the First Defendant, as the application would have been made at this juncture even under correct procedure.

The judgement reinforces the importance of strict procedural compliance regarding appeals from jurisdiction challenges, particularly concerning the timing of applications and the distinction between informal case management and formal adjournments. The Claimant must now pursue any permission application directly with the Court of Appeal.