Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 2401 April 2025

Maritime – Collision
The Admiralty Court has ruled on liability for a collision between a container ship and a product tanker in a narrow channel approaching the Bangladeshi port of Chattogram. The situation was complicated by the presence of a third vessel, an amphibious ship operated by the Bangladeshi army. The application of the narrow channel rule meant that vessels should keep as near to the outer limit of the channel on her starboard side as was safe and practicable. The tanker was in the wrong position on the port side of the channel. The judge held that the tanker was 65% liable, for not moving to the correct side of the channel sooner, not having a proper lookout, failing to engage the army vessel sooner and not reducing speed. The army vessel was 35% at fault (although it did not take part in the proceedings). Although the container ship was at fault in its lookout and speed, those faults did not cause the collision. In reaching her conclusion, the judge emphasised the need to consider the nature and causative potency of faults by each party and not just tally up the number of faults.
Owners of the X-Press Mahanada v Owners of the Burgan [2025] EWHC 721 (Admlty), 26 March 2025

Jurisdiction
The parties worked in partnership, under Frame Agreements, to deliver services to the oil and gas industries in Africa, until a dispute arose as to the amount to be paid to Destin, who alleged a shortfall of approx. US$7m. They entered into a settlement agreement of Destin’s claims that also terminated the Frame Agreements. The Frame Agreements provided for dispute resolution to be by ICC arbitration in London. The settlement agreement provided for disputes to be settled exclusively by the courts of England and Wales. Destin brought proceedings before the English court alleging misrepresentation by Saipem, claiming entitlement to recission of the settlement agreement and payment of the sums allegedly owing (the “monetary claims”). Saipem applied for a stay under section 9 Arbitration Act 1996 of the monetary claims on the basis that they arose out of the Frame Agreement and should be dealt with in arbitration. The court held that as a matter of interpretation the jurisdiction clause in the settlement agreement superseded the arbitration agreement in the Frame Agreements. The stay was refused.
Destin Trading Inc v Saipem SA [2025] EWHC 668 (Ch), 24 March 2025

Property
The Business and Property Court in Liverpool has provided guidance on the principles to be applied when considering the terms upon which residential sub-tenants of parts of a mixed-use building may obtain relief against forfeiture of a superior lease. The building, West Africa House, contained a restaurant, event space and residential apartments. The head lease was granted to Signature but forfeit in 2022 for non payment of rent. The apartment holders, as sub-lessees and their mortgagees applied for relief against forfeiture. The present hearing was of an appeal from the judge who held that the head lease was forfeit but made orders as to the granting of a new lease and subleases. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the judge had made no error of law and her decision was within the bounds of her discretion.
Derwent Lodge Estates Limited v Signature Living Hotel Limited (in administration) [2025] EWCC 8, 19 March 2025 (decision not publicly available)

Fiduciary Duty
Expert Tooling, a tool manufacturer, negotiated its electricity supply contract with Engie through a broker, Utilitywise. Expert Tooling paid nothing to Utilitywise for its services but was aware that it would receive commission from Engie, but no other details including amount. In fact the commission from Engie was added to the unit price that Expert Tooling paid for its electricity. Expert Tooling brought a claim against Engie for procurement of Utilitywise’s breach of contract or fiduciary duty and recovery of the commissions paid (Utilitywise went into administration so took no part in the proceedings). The claim was dismissed at first instance. The Court of Appeal held that although the judge had wrongly concluded that informed consent had been given to the commission payments and therefore Utilitywise had not been in breach of fiduciary duty, he was correct that dishonesty was an essential element of establishing accessory liability for assisting in the breach of an agent’s fiduciary duty. No allegation of dishonesty was made against Engie so the claim was dismissed.
Expert Tooling and Automation Ltd v Engie Power Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 292, 21 March 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: