The Claimant provided a financial facility of USD45m to D1 to support its ship-recycling business, secured by a personal guarantee of D2, who, during negotiations leading to the facility, presented a “Statement of Net Worth” of USD46m. D3 (CFO of D1) issued the required “Approved Borrower Statement”, asserting transactional compliance.  Repayments were not made and D2 provided a misleading “Statement of Delays”. The Court found all 3 Statements false and fraudulent, meant to deceive the Claimant, who relied on them. D2 and D3 were held liable for the torts of deceit and accessory liability respectively and Defendants collectively for unlawful means conspiracy, with damages to be assessed.

Sovcombank sought damages in the Russian courts after UK Sanctions prevented Barclays making payments under a financial facility. Supporting the facility's English exclusive jurisdiction clause, the Court granted Barclays not only an anti- suit injunction against Sovcombank but also a rare anti-enforcement injunction to further guard against a Russian judgment.

Following the sinking of the “X-Press Pearl” and the issue of English Limitation proceedings, the Defendant cargo claimants commenced proceedings in Sri Lanka, directly against the Vessel’s Club “as insurer”. The Club commenced London Arbitration (the forum specified by its Rules) against cargo claimants, seeking a declaration of non-liability; it also sought an anti-suit injunction. The Court ascertained that the claims were asserted under the insurance contract (rather than under any independent rights) so that the Rules, including “pay to be paid” applied, and granted the Club the injunction sought.

The Borrowers defaulted under a ship finance loan. Two vessels subject to the loan were arrested by other creditors and judicially sold by a port authority. Although joining in the arrests, the Claimant Lenders were initially unaware of the judicial sale of the vessels (for scrap) and received no proceeds. Granting the Lenders’ summary judgment application for the full outstanding loan amounts, the Court ruled that the Lenders were not in breach of their equitable duties: they had merely joined in arrest of the vessels and had done so in good faith; they had never taken possession of them, nor arranged their sale, indeed had no knowledge or control of the sale effected. The Lenders could not be expected to pay off all other creditors in order to move the Vessel elsewhere where better prices might be obtained, nor to seek recovery from the port authority.

The Vessel “Win Win” intending to anchor at EOPL Singapore in February 2019, was within Indonesian territorial waters and was arrested by their Navy (shortly after an anchoring rule change). The Vessel was detained for 18 months and the Master imprisoned. The Defendant war risk insurers contested liability under the Policy, arguing that (i) insured Owners knew/ should have known of the risk, thus the loss was voluntary (ii) the arrest was akin to a customs/ quarantine one and excluded by the Policy (iii) Owners failed in their ‘sue and labour’ duty, including engaging in futile negotiations with Indonesia, thus causing the loss. Each argument failed as did the Defendants’ attempt to avoid the policy for non-disclosure of (unrelated) Greek criminal charges against Owners’ director, held to have had no relevance or bearing on acceptance of the risk.

In relation to issues over whether certain payments had been made, the Claimants sought an order that a collection of some 6,000 of the Defendants’ documents, already manually searched, should now be subjected to “TAR” (technology-assisted review) to ascertain further discloseability. The Judge ruled that, bearing in mind limitations to the TAR system, an order was not justified in relation to documents already subjected to a disclosure exercise, adding that the situation might be different had a new source of documentation been identified.