Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 23418 February 2025

Construction – Building Safety
The UK’s First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has made a significant decision regarding remediation contribution orders (“RCOs”) under the Building Safety Act 2022. The tribunal ordered multiple associated companies to contribute jointly and severally over £13.2m towards the remediation of serious fire safety defects at Vista Tower, Stevenage. This landmark decision demonstrates the tribunal’s approach to determining what is “just and equitable” when making RCOs against associated companies and provides important guidance on the scope of the new legislation. It also provides clarification of what constitutes a defect, specifically that non-compliance with building regulation is just one and not the only determinant. The decision underscores the necessity of thoroughly assessing the safety risks associated with building works, beyond mere compliance with the building regulations. In addition, it serves as a reminder that the tribunal is prepared to scrutinise the underlying corporate structures to ensure that safety concerns are adequately addressed.

For further discussion please see our article here.
Grey GR Limited Partnership v Edgewater (Stevenage) Ltd and others [2025] FTT Property Chamber (residential Property), 24 January 2025

Maritime
The Commercial Court has rejected a claim by shipowners that a Chinese port was an “affected area” because the ship was required to quarantine before unloading due to the crew having tested positive for COVID-19. The ship had sailed to South Korea to replace the crew before returning to China to discharge the cargo. The shipowners claimed to be entitled to hire for that period as the BIMCO Infectious or Contagious Diseases Clause for Time Charter Parties provided that if the vessel proceeded to or remained at an affected area, any additional costs should be for the charterer’s account and the vessel remained on hire throughout. The court held that the Chinese port was not an affected area and further that the off-hire clause was triggered where there was a detention for quarantine notwithstanding that the vessel had used the quarantine time to replace the crew.
Bunge SA v Pan Ocean Co Ltd, The Sagar Ratan [2025] EWHC 168 (Comm), 30 January 2025 (judgment not publicly available)

Anti Suit Injunctions
The Court of Appeal has granted UniCredit’s application to revoke an anti-suit injunction that it had previously obtained against RusChemAlliance (“RCA”), a Russian corporation. The injunction prevented RCA from pursing claims in relation to various performance and advance payment bonds in any forum (in particular the Russian courts) other than by arbitration as per the contractual agreements. RCA subsequently obtained an order from the Russian court requiring UniCredit to cancel the effect of the anti-suit injunction or be subject to a €250m fine. The Court of Appeal granted the application after weighing various factors including the commercial pressure on UniCredit and public policy reasons. It concluded that UniCredit was a commercial party acting in its own interests, who was entitled to say to the court that it no longer required the anti-suit injunction. It would be unfair to force UniCredit to risk massive penalties if the order was not discharged.
UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2025] EWCA Civ 99, 11 February 2025

Sovereign Immunity
The Court of Appeal has dismissed a challenge to Mrs Justice Cockerill’s conclusion that the Russian Federation could not reargue the issue of whether it had submitted a dispute to arbitration where a Dutch tribunal had already given a judgment on that question. The proceedings in England arose when the successful party in the Dutch arbitration, Hulley, sought to enforce those awards in England and Russia challenged the English court’s jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. The Court of Appeal held that the ordinary English law principles of issue estoppel applied. The Dutch court held that Russia had agreed in writing to submit the dispute to arbitration, this gave rise to issue estoppel and the Dutch court’s decision was final and conclusive. Mrs Justice Cockerill had been right to take account of this when concluding that the exception to state immunity in section 9 of the Sovereign Immunity Act 1978 applied. Russia’s challenge to the English court’s jurisdiction was dismissed.
Hulley Enterprises Ltd v The Russian Federation [2025] EWCA Civ 108, 12 February 2025

Maritime – Arbitration
A shipowner has successfully challenged an arbitration award on the basis that there was serious irregularity leading to substantial injustice (under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996). The dispute related to a ship repair contract and damage to the vessel after it left the repair yard. No hearing was held in the arbitration and it proceeded on written submissions. The tribunal held that the damage was caused by misalignment of the intermediate shaft bearing but that the yard’s liability was discharged when the ship sailed, because of two contractual clauses that had the effect of limiting or removing the yard’s liability to the shipowner. There was serious irregularity in the award because it was made on a basis that was not raised by either party or the tribunal and therefore the claimant had no opportunity to put its case on the point. The award was remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration.
Mare Nova Incorporated v Zhangjiagang Jiushin Ship Engineering Co. Ltd [2025] EWHC 223 (Comm), 10 February 2025

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: