Dispute Resolution

Disputes are inevitable in commercial dealings, and when they do arise, they are often of very high value and revolve around complex issues covering more than one jurisdiction. Within our firm, we have specialist expertise in various types of dispute resolution methods having been involved in some high-profile cases in our areas of practice.

We understand that disputes can be a considerable drain on funds and management resources, we endeavour to provide our clients with tactically and technically excellent lawyers, clear advice on the merits of any claim they are involved in, a clear strategy to achieving their aspirations, and effective solutions based on carefully budgeted timescales where the end should always justify the means.

We handle a range of commercial and public disputes including claims for breach of contract, company disputes, debt claims, regulatory including investigations by governmental authorities, shareholder and joint venture issues, judicial reviews, cross-border enforcement of judgments and awards.

We represent clients before English courts including High Court litigation as well as in institutional arbitrations (ICC, LCIA, CIETAC, SCC and SIAC) and ad hoc arbitrations (UNCITRAL), and all forms of alternative dispute resolution including adjudication, expert determination and mediation.

Our experience advising and representing clients in disputes include the following:

  • Oil and Gas Company v Oil and Gas Company. For the Claimant in an arbitration dispute governed by the LCIA Rules concerning its US$989 million acquisition of oil and gas assets and in particular its claim for post-closing adjustments;
  • Mining Company v Electricity Utility. For the Defendant/Respondent in resisting injunction proceedings for specific performance in relation to a bulk supply agreement and provision of electricity.
  • Bank v Individual. For the Defendant in resisting the enforcement of a Dubai court judgment in the English High Court (settled before the hearing);
  • A v B [2017] EWHC 503 (Comm). For the Claimant in successfully resisting an application made by the Defendant to set aside an order in favour of the Claimant permitting service by an alternative method on the Defendant’s lawyers in India of an order permitting to enforce an English arbitration award as a judgment;
  • Consumers v Non-profit organisation: For the Defendant in successfully resisting 15 (out of 16) separate chargeback claims pursuant to several credit card scheme rules in “chargeback arbitration” with respect to losses arising from a force majeure event (claims value confidential);
  • State-Owned Oil and Gas Company v International Oil Company. For the Claimant in an arbitration relating to the breach of a Farm-Out agreement in Latin America and the insolvency of a counter-party leading to US$3.6 billion corporate bonds in default. The arbitration was under the LCIA Rules;
  • Mining Company v Electricity Utility. For the Respondent in representing a national electricity utility, in a UNCITRAL arbitration concerning the interrelationship between regulatory directions and private contractual rights under a Bulk Supply Agreements.;
  • E&P Company v E&P Company. For the Respondent. Prepared a legal opinion for a tier 1 international oil and gas company advising on the validity/enforceability of an outright forfeiture provision in a Middle Eastern Joint Operating Agreement governed under English law in light of a proposed arbitration;
  • Sudanese Government v Oil Company. For the Respondent in defending a multi-billion-dollar arbitral claim (UNCITRAL) concerning the ownership and transfer of a pipeline in respect of certain oil fields in Sudan;
  • Saudi Utility Company v Real Estate Developing Company. For the Claimant in relation to power and district cooling services. The seat of arbitration was Saudi Arabia, and the arbitration was under the Saudi Law of Arbitration 2012;
  • Mining Corporation v African State-Owned Company. For the Respondent in defending a US$200 million in relation to a tariff dispute under a power supply agreement;
  • Various Parties v Chinese National Petroleum Company. For the Respondent in defending (and counterclaiming) a US$41 million international arbitration claim (UNCITRAL) relating to a transnational oil pipeline between Russia and Kazakhstan;
  • Oil Company v Petronas. For the Respondent in defending a US$50 million arbitral claim (UNCITRAL and SIAC) for breach of a Production Sharing Contract and Farm-in Agreement concerning an offshore drilling dispute;
  • Saudi Construction Company v Italian Contractor. For the Claimant in bringing an arbitral claim (ICC) for a breach of an EPC contract against an Italian contractor;
  • African state-owned company v Indian State-Owned Power Plant Equipment Manufacturer. For the Claimant on adjudication and subsequent international arbitration dispute concerning a claim relating to the provision of defective transformers in a hydro-power station (UNCITRAL); and
  • Saudi Utility Company v UK O&M Subsidiary.For the Claimant in a multi-million arbitration claim in relation to an operation and management contract of a number of cooling facilities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Please go to Transactions and Cases to learn more about our experience in dispute resolution and litigation.

  • “First-class” energy boutique (Legal 500 – 2013).
  • LXL ranked for oil and gas having “in-depth knowledge and a focus on the sector not apparent in many other firms.” (Legal 500 – 2014)