BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2)
UK legal case
BP Exploration Co (Libya) v Hunt (No 2) [1983] 2 AC 352 is an English contract and unjust enrichment case, concerning the frustration of an agreement.
Facts
In 1957 Nelson Bunker Hunt obtained an oil concession for the Sarir field in Libya. In 1960, he contracted with BP to exploit the oil. The contract said (1) Hunt would transfer BP half the concession (2) BP would transfer Hunt 'farm in' contributions in cash and oil (3) BP would explore for and develop the oil (4) BP provided all funds until the oil was found, and (5) the profits would be shared, but 3/8 of Hunt's share would go to BP until 125% of the farm in contributions and half the costs of BP were covered. A massive oil reserve was found in 1967. However, in 1971, 2 years after the Libyan government was overthrown and replaced by Muammar Gaddafi, it nationalised BP's half share. BP had already covered half its costs. Two years later in 1973, the Libyan government also expropriated Hunt from his share. BP claimed the contract was frustrated, and claimed for a just sum of money to be awarded under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, section 1(3).
Judgment
High Court
Robert Goff J held the contract was frustrated in 1971 and under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, section 1(3) awarded BP $35.4m plus interest.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2)” as uK legal case. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as uK legal case. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 9, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q4836290. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1983, 1957, 1960 and 1967.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2)”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2) primary sources, BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2) archive and Exploration research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2)”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2)” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.