The claimant former shareholders of Yukos obtained – and sought to enforce – Arbitration Awards determining that the Tribunal had jurisdiction and that RF was in breach and liable to pay them some USD50bn in damages. RF challenged both the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the English Court’s jurisdiction to enforce on the basis of state immunity. In fact, RF alleged that the claimants could not invoke the provision containing RF’s agreement to arbitration as they did not fit in the definition of "investors" as required. The same challenges were brought before Dutch Courts but they were rejected. The Commercial Court held that the Dutch judgments created issue-estoppel precluding RF from re-opening jurisdiction: RF’s challenges already had a determination and it could not seek another one before a different court.

Disputes arose under a substantial gas supply contract between the claimant State and the defendant BVI corporation. Following ICC arbitration in London, the defendant was awarded USD6.6bn in damages. Nigeria’s appeal under s.68(2)(g) of the Arbitration Act (serious irregularity – award obtained by fraud or in a manner contrary to public policy) succeeded.  The Court found that the defendant had provided false evidence to the Tribunal, bribed a Nigerian official to conceal significant facts and had improperly obtained Nigeria’s privileged documents. But for this conduct the Tribunal would have reached a different conclusion.

Disputes arose under 2 bareboat charters over Owners’ Termination Notices (following shareholding changes in sub-charterers). After starting arbitration, Owners sought injunctive relief from the Court under s.44(3) of the Arbitration Act (orders to preserve evidence or assets in urgent cases) requiring the immediate redelivery of the Vessels, as during the proceedings the Vessels would be exposed to risks and loss of Owners’ opportunity. The Court declined the injunction because Owners failed to prove urgency and further, the injunction, in bringing about redelivery, would thwart the arbitrators’ role in deciding validity of the Notices.

The Claimant sought an ant-suit injunction restraining Russian proceedings in favour of ICC arbitration in Paris, as specified in an arbitration clause in a bond expressed to be governed by English law. The Court declined the injunction, ruling that it had no such jurisdiction, given that the arbitration was to be in France (where substantial justice could be done).

Those interested in a cargo of cocoa beans claimed against the carrier in respect of damage. The Court found that the condensation damage was caused by post-discharge lack of container ventilation pending de-vanning. The contractual claim (by the B/L holder/ endorsee) failed as the B/L provided that carrier’s liability ended upon tendering the goods for delivery (here discharge) and incorporated the Hague Rules to the same effect.  The negligence claim by the alleged goods owner failed as there was neither evidence as to cargo ownership at the material time, nor basis for carrier liability outside the terms of the B/L.

Following an unpaid Judgment for damages for wrongful arrest of the vessel ‘Captain Silver’, the Claimants took enforcement steps, including an Asset Disclosure Order (ADO), which was disobeyed, resulting in a Contempt of Court ruling, a £100,000 fine on AGR (unpaid) and a 12-month Committal Order on its general manager, Mr AG. The latter applied to discharge the Committal Order on the grounds that whilst he was willing to comply with the ADO, he had no authority to do so because his co-signatories withheld consent. The Court declined: the Committal Order could not be discharged whilst the underlying Contempt remained and there were insufficient grounds to ‘purge’ the Contempt. Mr AG had failed to take adequate steps to obtain co-signatories’ support, and he could have at least partially complied with the ADO. Should he do so in future purging might be possible.