Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 23014 January 2025

Construction – Building Safety Act 2022
The Technology and Construction Court has provided guidance as to when a group of residential leaseholders and a right-to-manage company could seek a building liability order (“BLO”) in relation to defective works carried out by the freehold owner of the building. The freeholder owner was in liquidation, but the court held that the order could be sought against the parent company as it was an associated company under section 31 of the Building Safety Act 2022. The court also confirmed that a BLO did not necessarily need to be sought within existing proceedings, though it would be efficient to do so if such an order was contemplated during the proceedings. The court was satisfied that the structural and fire safety issues gave rise to a building safety risk but that a further hearing was required to consider whether to make the BLO.
381 Southwark Park Road RTM Co Ltd v Click St Andrews Ltd (In Liquidation) [2024] EWHC 3179 (TCC), 11 December 2024

Maritime
The Admiralty Court has rejected the claim of a port authority where it tried to charge a significant sum as a period toll after a vessel’s stay in port was extended because the cargo of hardwood was poorly stowed and this prolonged the discharge operation. The shipowner paid the additional stevedoring, shifting and equipment charges from the port. However, it objected to a 10-day period toll that amounted to £248,026.22. The court held that clause 5(4) of the port’s published Port Charges only entitled the toll to be charged where the vessel had remained alongside once loading or discharging has completed. It rejected the port’s argument that the period toll was payable from that point in time where loading or discharging ought to have completed but did not complete.
Port of Sheerness Limited v Swire Shipping Pte Limited [2025] EWHC 7 (Admlty), 3 January 2025

Sovereign Immunity
The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision that the Kingdom of Spain was not able to claim sovereign or diplomatic immunity against a claim brought by a former employee at its embassy in the UK. The employee alleged race discrimination and harassment by a member of the embassy’s diplomatic staff. The court held that the relevant acts were not sovereign acts and rejected a suggestion that anything said or done by a senior diplomat at an embassy had to be a sovereign act. The acts could be carried out by private persons and there was no authority put forward which indicated that anyone employed in an embassy with access to confidential documents was barred from bringing a claim before the employment tribunal. Diplomatic immunity could only be invoked by the diplomatic agent, not the sending state.
Spain v Lorenzo [2024] EWCA Civ 1602, 20 December 2024

Maritime
A dispute arose between a marina and yacht owner relating to an alleged agreement for berthing of 14 sailing vessels taking part in the 2023 Ocean Globe yacht race as to whether the fees were owing and who was the correct defendant. The marina tried to arrest the defendant’s yacht as security for the fees allegedly owing in relation to all 14 yachts.  The Admiralty Court held that “any claim in respect of the construction, repair or equipment of a ship or in respect of dock charges or dues” in s. 20(2)(n), Senior Courts Act 1981 related only to the particular ship in respect of which the charges or dues were owing and any wider construction would contradict longstanding authority. The arrest could only continue for the fees relating to the defendant’s vessel.
Marina Developments Ltd v Owner(s) of the Explorer [2024] EWHC (Admlty), 20 December 2024 (judgment not publicly available yet)

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: