< Back to insights hub


Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 512 November 2019


The English Commercial Court has found that while it was appropriate to take steps to enforce a negative covenant not to trade a vessel, the claimant seller was only entitled to nominal damages for past breaches of the covenant – this was not one of the occasions where negotiating damages would be available.
Priyanka Shipping Limited v Glory Bulk Carriers PTE Limited

In a useful clarification of the principles applicable to non-party costs orders, the English High Court has found that when determining the extent of a third party funder’s liability for such costs under the so-called “Arkin cap”, sums advanced to fund the payment of interim costs orders should be included in the calculation.
Burnden Holdings (UK) Limited (in liquidation) & Anr v Fielding & Anr

Reminding parties of the impact of the open justice principle, the English High Court has found there was a realistic prospect a member of the public could have successfully applied to obtain a document that was put in evidence and referred to in open court, meaning that there was a real prospect a court would hold the document to be so generally accessible it could no longer be regarded as confidential or private.
Maroil Trading, Inc. & Anr v Cally Shipholdings, Inc. & Ors

In an important marine insurance judgment, the English Commercial Court has confirmed settled industry practice that a defence of actionable fault under Rule D of the York-Antwerp Rules will be available to an insurer under a general average guarantee in the AAA/ILU standard form.
Navalmar UK Limited v Ergo Versicherung AG & Anr (“BSLE Sunrise”)


Should you wish to discuss any of these cases in further detail, please speak with a member of our London dispute resolution team below, or your regular contact at Watson Farley & Williams:

< Back to insights hub

< Back to insights hub