This question concerns the case Power Curber International Ltd v National Bank of Kuwait.

Answer the following questions

(i) The trial court in London has granted judgment in favour of the beneficiary on an application for summary judgment. At the same time the trial judge has imposed a temporary stay (i.e. halt) on the enforcement of the judgment.

Suppose there was no stay of the summary judgment. If the defendant (BoK) did not pay the plaintiff (Power Curber) how would the plaintiff enforce the judgment?

(ii) BoK is appealing the trial court decision. On the appeal BoK is arguing first this is not a matter for summary judgment. Rather there should be a regular trial. Secondly BoK is arguing that if the summary judgment is valid then the stay on enforcement of the judgment should continue. (Continuing the stay would provide time for BoK to appeal further to the House of Lords.)

We are told several times that the Bank of Kuwait wants to pay the beneficiary.

There is something odd here. BoK wants to pay, but at the same time it is appealing the summary judgment ordering it to pay. ??? If they want to pay why dont they (i.e. BoK) just pay and not appeal the order to pay?

(iii) What is the fundamental reason why Power Curber wins?

(iv) Earlier, back in Kuwait, Hammoudeh started legal proceedings against Power Curber for an alleged debt of around $180,000. In regards to that claim Hammoudeh obtained a provisional attachment of Power Curbers receivable. (Power Curbers receivable is the debt owed by BoK.)

Is this provisional attachment all a bit odd? Regarding the l.c. who was the applicant? What are the terms of the deal between the applicant and the issuing bank?

(v) Power Curber has earlier received payment of 25% of the invoice.

- Who was the nominated bank?

- How did BoK reimburse the nominated bank?

(vi) - As regards the as yet unpaid 75% who was the nominated bank?

- What was the original plan regarding the issuing bank reimbursing the nominated bank for the 75%?