Claimant “Christos Theo” claimed for damage sustained in agrounding following a ‘near miss’ with Defendant “Aliki”. Followingexchange of pleadings in which “Aliki” alleged and, in the Court’s view,demonstrated, a prima facie case that the “Christos Theo” main enginemalfunctioned, preventing it from being put astern, the Defendant applied forspecific disclosure of material capturing the incident and also as to priorproblems/ failings with the main engine.  The Court found the Claimants’assertion that searches revealed no such material “defies belief” andexplanations were demonstrably wrong or incomplete. An Order was made forsearches by the Claimant for numerous items of disclosure, supported ifnecessary by verification statement. The Court directed that the Claimant payall costs of the application, ordering an interim payment of GBP70,000.

Following a fire on m/y "Big Kahuna" spreading to other vessels in a Corfu marina and sinking some, including the 1929 wooden ketch "Halcyon”, the English insurers and Owners of the former commenced Limitation proceedings in the English Court. "Halcyon" subsequently sought damages in the Greek Courts (where Limitation was 3x higher) and applied to stay the English action. Declining, the Court ruled that there was no question of the (English interests) "Big Kahuna" 'forum shopping' and no reason why Limitation and underlying claim could not be tried in separate jurisdictions.

In the context of an arbitration relating a claim under a film-production policy, the insurer applied to Court for the removal of the sole arbitrator on the ground of apparent bias due to his knowledge of and attitude towards the insured's factual and expert witnesses and some remarks that he did not intend hear the insured’s expert witnesses because he knew them “all personally extremely well” as "exceptional people in their fields". The judge found no actual or apparent bias based purely on his past industry relationship with the witnesses. Nevertheless, the arbitrator was removed because the suggestion that it was unnecessary to cross-examine the insured’s expert witnesses was plainly not an expression of a balanced and impartial view as it gave rise to an apprehension that he had pre-determined favourable views, thereby pre-judging the merits of the dispute.