Knowledge Counsel London
"Best practice, to promote greater certainty, may call for a bill of lading to contain a statement that improves on that seen in this case."
Maritime
The Commercial Court was asked to consider two appeals against an arbitration award under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. It decided that proceedings that were brought in the Singapore court in breach of an arbitration agreement in the bills of lading did not constitute ‘suit’ under article III, rule 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules. The result was that time did not stop running and the cargo interests’ claim for misdelivery was out of time. The arbitration proceedings began more than a year after the alleged misdelivery, when a stay of the Singapore proceedings was granted. The arbitrator had decided that the time bar only applied to cargo carried under deck. The court held that a practical and commercial approach was required in applying the phrase “which by the contract of carriage is stated as being carried on deck” in article 1(c) to the specific situation in question. What was required to satisfy the test may vary according to the cargo. The court held that the arbitrator was not wrong in law to conclude that the requirement in article 1(c) was satisfied.
Batavia Eximp & Contracting (S) Pte Ltd v Pedregal Maritime SA [2025] EWHC 1878 (Comm), 22 July 2025
Companies
The Supreme Court held that Mr Stevens, who had dishonestly assisted Mr Ruhan, a constructive trustee, in dissipating a trust fund, was liable to compensate the beneficiary for loss of its proprietary interest in the fund after the funds were dissipated. Mr Ruhan was a director of the respondent company and had breached his fiduciary duties by making unauthorised profits from his position as director. Those profits were held by Mr Ruhan in a constructive trust. Mr Stevens was held to be jointly liable for the loss caused. In reaching this majority conclusion (Lord Burrows dissented), the Supreme Court allowed the appeal from the Court of Appeal and restored the first instance decision.
Stevens v Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd (in liquidation) and another [2025] UKSC 28, 23 July 2025
Insurance
The Commercial Court has provided further guidance on the interpretation of business interruption insurance policies following the Covid pandemic. This case involved several companies that operated racecourses and related facilities. This judgment dealt with various preliminary issues. The court held that where a £2.5m limit applied to “any one loss”, that related to each premises, per restriction, not each scheduled race that was cancelled or conducted behind closed doors. It also held that in relation to ‘Denial of Access Cover’, that was triggered by actions of “any other competent authority”, the British Horseracing Authority and the Greyhound Board of Great Britain satisfied that definition.
Bath Racecourse Co Ltd v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE [2025] EWHC 1870 (Comm), 22 July 2025
Jurisdiction
The dispute arose between directors of Viva Wallet Holdings Software Development SA (“Viva”) and JP Morgan as a shareholder of Viva. JP Morgan commenced proceedings against the directors in the Greek court alleging infringement of the Greek Civil Code. The Commercial Court granted anti-suit injunctions against JP Morgan on the basis that the Greek proceedings were in breach of an implied obligation in the contract. That implied obligation was that proceedings would not be commenced in a jurisdiction in which a “no liability” provision was ineffective.
JP Morgan International Finance Ltd v Werealize.Com Ltd [2025] EWHC 1842 (Comm), 18 July 2025
Arbitration
In a dispute arising out of a power purchase agreement governed by the laws of Pakistan, arbitration was commenced under LCIA rules with its seat in London. The award handed down was in favour of SHPL, the electricity supplier and against NTDCL, a state entity and operator of the Pakistan electricity network. NTDCL commenced proceedings in Lahore in relation to the award, which resulted in an interim order suspending payment by NTDCL to SHPL. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal from the first instance judgment that refused an injunction and issued an anti-suit injunction against the Lahore proceedings. It was an impermissible attempt to avoid the supervisory jurisdiction of the English court. The English courts were the appropriate place for a challenge to a London-seated arbitration award.
Key contacts
Knowledge Counsel London
Partner London
