Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 24229 April 2025

Sovreign Immunity – Arbitration
The Commercial Court concluded that the Republic of India (“India”) had not waived state immunity and consented to the jurisdiction of the English court simply by ratifying the 1958 New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The issue arose after Mauritian claimants sought to enforce bilateral investment treaty arbitration awards in the English courts. India applied to challenge the enforcement order. The court held that Article III of the New York Convention (which provides that states would recognise arbitral awards as binding and enforce them in accordance with the rules of procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon) did not mean that India’s ratification of the New York Convention was written consent to waiving its state immunity (under section 2(2) of the State Immunity Act 1978).
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd and others v Republic of India [2025] EWHC 964 (Comm), 17 April 2025

Construction
The Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”) held that a contract to carry out demolition works had been made during an exchange of WhatsApp messages. They rejected the employer’s argument that the contract was based on a demolition subcontract that was provided subsequently by email. The WhatsApp exchange contained decisions on all the relevant terms, including scope of works and price, and the 1996 Construction Act filled the gaps. There was nothing that indicated that it was to be dependent on incorporation of standard terms. The dispute arose in relation to four unpaid invoices. The adjudicator found in favour of the contractor, but the sums still went unpaid, even with a court order. The employer’s application for declaratory relief that the invoices were not valid payment applications was rejected. The court held that the contract entitled the contractor to issue monthly applications for payment that should be paid within 30 days. Three of the four invoices were valid, with the fourth being invalid because the contractor was only permitted to issue one payment application a month.
Jaevee Homes Ltd v Fincham (trading as Fincham Demolition) [2025] EWHC 942 (TCC), 16 April 2025

Adjudication
In a dispute arising from a contract to refurbish some business premises, the TCC upheld an adjudicator’s decision that the employer owed the contractor £120,000. The court rejected the employer’s challenge to jurisdiction that was based on there being multiple contracts. There was a single contract that had expanded in scope. There was no basis for the arguments of breach of natural justice. The adjudicator had not gone on a frolic and had taken account of all contentions put to her. Summary judgment was granted in favour of LAPP.
Lapp Industries Ltd v 1st Formations Ltd [2025] EWHC 943 (TCC), 16 April 2025

Jurisdiction
In a dispute arising from the alleged non-payment of music royalties, the Court of Appeal has clarified the interpretation of a jurisdiction clause. The clause provided for disputes to be governed by English law and that the parties submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. There was an additional provision that claims in relation to the purchase price may be brought in the courts of Los Angeles, California or New York City, New York. The court held that the English court had jurisdiction over all claims, including purchase price claims. The only carve out was where the respondents (but not the appellants) chose to pursue purchase price claims in the USA. The claims, including the purchase price claims, were properly commenced in England before the US proceedings, the English courts had exclusive jurisdiction over all those claims and the limited carve out did not affected this jurisdiction.
Hipgnosis SFH 1 Limited v Manilow and another [2025] EWCA Civ 486, 17 April 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: