Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 26028 October 2025

Arbitration
The Commercial Court has provided useful clarification on the timing for an appeal against an arbitration award to be brought in the context of a FOSFA arbitration process. The claimant had issued its claim form containing an appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“AA 1996”) on 8 May 2025, which was 28 days after the claimant received the award on 10 April 2025. However, the award was issued and dated 26 March 2025. Section 70(3) AA 1996 requires that an appeal be brought within 28 days of the date of the award, or where there has been any arbitral process of appeal or review, the date when the applicant was notified of the result of that process. The award to be challenged was an appeal to the FOSFA Board of Appeal against the FOSFA first tier tribunal decision. The court rejected an argument that time ran from when that decision was received by the claimant. The second limb of section 70(3) only applied where the award to be appealed was the underlying one subject to the appeal process (in this case the first tier decision). Here, the decision to be appealed was the Board of Appeal decision in relation to which the second limb did not arise. Further, the court refused to grant an extension of time on the basis that the error was not forgivable. The appeal was out of time.

JSC Kazan Oil Plant v Aves Trade DMCC [2025] EWHC 2713 (Comm), 21 October 2025

Landlord and tenant
Mentmore Greenland Ltd (“Greenland”) was lessee of a golf course, the freeholder and lessor was Mr Gaymer and the mortgagee was Mentmore Golf Investments Ltd (“Investments”). Mr Gaymer sought forfeiture of the lease for breach of repairing obligations and obtained a possession order. Both Greenland and Investments unsuccessfully applied for relief from forfeiture, but only Investments appealed that decision. The Chancery Court held, allowing the appeal on this point, that the application for relief from forfeiture had been made in time as required by section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 because it had been made after the possession order was made but before it was executed. However, the court dismissed the appeal overall on the basis that it was an abuse of process. Both Investments and Greenland, and the litigation were controlled by Mr Halabi and there was a pattern of abusive litigation to avoid paying sums owed and to keep the golf course. Investments was not an independent mortgagee protecting its rights and could have taken steps far earlier.

Mentmore Golf Investments Ltd v Gaymer [2025] EWHC 2604 (Ch), 13 October 2025

Insurance
In the context of claims for indemnification brought by Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Limited (“RSA”) under reinsurance policies against Equitas Insurance Limited (“Equitas”), the Commercial Court has provided guidance on the relationship between follow the settlements clauses and claims cooperation clauses. Both clauses are common in reinsurance policies. A claims cooperation clause requires the primary insurer (here RSA) to cooperate with the reinsurers (here Equitas) in respect of significant losses likely to fall under the reinsurance policy. A follow the settlement clause binds the reinsurers to follow the settlement agreed by the primary insurers. The court looked at the natural and ordinary meaning of the words and concluded that the two clauses could be read consistently with each other. Equitas was bound by the settlements under the primary policies, but in any event had agreed to the course RSA adopted. Further, it had failed to prove that RSA did not take proper and businesslike steps.

Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd (formerly Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc) and others v Equitas Insurance Ltd [2025] EWHC 2704 (Comm), 21 October 2025

Costs
Following Nigeria’s successful application to set aside two arbitration awards made in favour of the appellant (“P&ID”), a costs order was made in Nigeria’s favour. P&ID challenged this order to the UK’s highest court on the basis that it should have been made in naira, Nigeria’s national currency, rather that in sterling. P&ID asserted that awarding the costs in sterling would give Nigeria a significant windfall given the fall in the value of the naira over the last few years. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and confirmed that it was appropriate to award the costs in sterling. Nigeria’s lawyers had submitted invoices in sterling and been paid in that currency. The court emphasised the discretionary nature of an order for costs and its differences from an award of damages. It also highlighted that there were pragmatic reasons why the court did not investigate a party’s arrangements for funding litigation.

Process & Industrial Developments Ltd v Nigeria [2025] UKSC 36, 22 October 2025