Stephen joined 7KBW in 1988, following the completion of his pupillage, and he has since practised here in commercial law.  His experience has included, in 1990, a six-month secondment to the Australian law firm, Malleson Stephen Jaques, where he worked as a litigation solicitor.  In 2001 “The Lawyer” magazine identified him as one of its top ten juniors at the commercial bar.  He took silk in 2006.

Stephen has a broad practice, covering most areas within Chambers’ general expertise.  From the outset of his career he has acted in all manner of shipping and marine insurance disputes.  He has also had long experience in non-marine insurance and reinsurance cases, including claims against brokers and other professional advisers.  He has acted for the Corporation of Lloyd’s, both in civil disputes and in relation to disciplinary proceedings. 

Recently, while maintaining his established practice, he has extended his experience to aviation insurance, acted in credit-hire cases, advised in relation to a long-term gas supply contract, and appeared in a number of ship-building-related arbitrations.  He has particular experience of acting in large-scale and complex disputes, a number of which have involved allegations of fraud or corruption.  He enjoys and has wide experience of working with experts, with foreign lawyers and with foreign clients.

Much of his recent work has been in arbitration, or has been confidential for other reasons.

Selected cases:

• In 2010 Stephen was instructed by Clyde & Co. in PK Air Finance US Inc v Chartis Insurance UK Limted and others, to act for insurers resisting claims by the owners and mortgagees of three Boeing 747 aircraft.  It was claimed that the aircraft had been lost when misappropriated by an Iranian airline: see, by way of background, Blue Sky One Limited and others v Mahan Air and others [2009] EWHC 3314 (Comm) and [2010] EWHC 631 (Comm).  The case settled in September 2010, following a mediation.
• In 2009 Stephen acted as leading counsel in several ship-building arbitrations for Korean clients (instructed by Clyde & Co).
• In 2009-2010, Stephen led the arbitration of a claim for repudiation of a charter of a vessel to be built, for Chinese clients on the instructions of Winter Scott.  The dispute raised questions of force majeure, frustration, and quantification of loss – but was settled (early 2010) before an award could be made. 
• CNA Insurance Co. Ltd v Willis Ltd: acting for Willis (together with Gavin Kealey QC, instructed by Slaughter and May) in a US$300 million Commercial Court action arising out of the reinsurance of occupational accident risks.  The case settled in September 2009.
• Since 2007, Stephen has acted for Danish clients in two long-running arbitrations relating to the operation and termination of time-charters of a bulk carrier (instructed by Mills & Co.).
• In 2008, he acted in two arbitrations concerning the hire of off-shore support vessels for use in oil exploration; for Mexican clients (instructed by Thomas Cooper).
• In CGU International v Astrazeneca [2005] EWHC 2755 (Comm), [2006] Lloyd’s Rep. IR 409 (Cresswell J); [2006] EWCA Civ 1340, [2007] 1 Lloyd's Rep 142, CA, he acted (with Christopher Butcher QC, instructed by Lovells) for reinsurers who successfully appealed an arbitration award.

Worcester College, Oxford: MA (Jurisprudence).  BCL (first class) 1986

Stephen was a member of the Bar Standards Board’s Complaints Committee 2003-2009. 

He is now (2010) a member of the Bar Council’s Professional Practice Committee

• Shipping
• Insurance & Reinsurance
• Professional Negligence
• Sale of Goods
• Arbitration
• Injunctions & Arrests
• Banking and Finance
• Jurisdiction/Conflicts of Laws
• Miscellaneous
• Carriage of Goods
• Energy & Natural Resources

Stephen has advised and acted in a very large number of arbitrations and court hearings concerning shipping and carriage of goods by sea.  A small selection of these cases are mentioned below.

Selected cases:

• In 2010 Stephen represented Chinese charterers in the arbitration of a claim for repudiation of a charter of a vessel to be built on the instructions of Winter Scott.  The dispute raised difficult and novel questions of force majeure, frustration, and quantification of loss – but was settled before an award could be made. 
• Between 2007 and 2010 Stephen has acted for Danish clients in two long-running arbitrations relating to the operation and termination of time-charters of a bulk carrier (instructed by Mills & Co.).
• In 2008 Stephen acted for Mexican charterers in an arbitration concerning the hire of off-shore support vessels for use in oil exploration (instructed by Thomas Cooper.)
• Also in 2008 Stephen acted for Chinese owners in an arbitration reference concerning the shipment of an insect-infested cargo of rice (instructed by Thomas Cooper).
• CMA-CGM S.A. V. Beteiligungs-Kommanditgesellschaft MS "Northern Pioneer" Schiffahrts-gesellschaft M.B.H & Co [2002] EWCA Civ 1878; [2003] 1 WLR 1015 (C.A.).  Stephen was instructed by Holman Fenwick & Willan for the Respondent owners, who successfully resisted an application for leave to appeal from an arbitration award. The arbitrators had concluded that German participation in the NATO air operations over Serbia and Kosovo did not constitute “involvement in war”, and the charterers had not been entitled to cancel under the war clauses in four long-term time charters.  This was the first case in which the Court of Appeal considered the principles by which leave to appeal may be granted under s. 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (cf. the Nema Guidelines).
• Borealis v Stargas, The “Berge Sisar” [2002] AC 205 (H.L.): instructed (with Jonathan Gaisman QC) by Richards Butler for Saudi Aramco. This case is the leading authority on Section 3 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.  Saudi Aramco resisted joinder to an action, contending that it could not be liable under bills of lading pursuant to Section 3 of the Act unless it was also entitled to sue on the bills under Section 2.  Since they were no longer lawful holders of the bills, they were neither entitled, nor liable.  The House of Lords accepted this submission.
• However, in a related case, Petroleo Brasiliero S.A. and others v Mellitus Shipping Inc and others, The “Baltic Flame” [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 203 (C.A.) Saudi Aramco’s argument that it should not be joined to proceedings as a potential contributor because (a) this would outflank arbitration and jurisdiction agreements with those with whom it had contracted; and (b) a claim in contribution was unknown in its country of domicile, failed.
• The “Sun” and the “Riza” [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 314 (Timothy Walker J): led by Jonathan Gaisman QC for the plaintiff charterers.  These charterparty actions turned on whether the defendant, Captain John Vatis, had contracted personally or not.  Held, that he had chartered on behalf of a Panamanian company (Kronos Maritime Agencies S.A) and was not therefore personally liable.
• The “Breydon Merchant” [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 373 (Sheen J).  Under the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, shipowners were entitled to limit their liability to cargo owners in respect of cargo’s share of a salvage award; although they could not limit their own liability to salvors.

Since the outset of his career Stephen has been instructed in a number of significant marine insurance cases.  He has also been involved, over the years, in numerous insurance and reinsurance arbitrations.

Selected cases:

Marine Insurance

• Thor Navigation v Ingosstrakh Insurance [2005] EWHC 19, [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 547 (Gloster J): for the claimant shipowners, whose hull and machinery policy on their trading vessel “Thor II” was found by the Court to be an unvalued policy.  A claim to rectify the policy failed.
• Seashore Marine S.A. v Phoenix Assurance Plc And Others (The "Vergina") [2001] Lloyd’s Rep. 698, 719, [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 238 (Aikens J): for the claimant shipowners, who recovered their salvage payments from hull and machinery underwriters.  The judge also awarded enhanced interest and indemnity costs under CPR Part 36.
• The "Sagheera" [1997] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 160 (Rix J.), for the defendant hull and machinery underwriters.  This case concerned the assertion of legal professional privilege in relation to documents created in the course of a joint investigation conducted by the owners of this vessel and its war risks insurers, following an explosion which caused her total loss.  Held, those documents were privileged from disclosure to others (e.g. hull and machinery underwriters).  The judgment also deals with privilege claimed for documents disseminating legal advice “internally”, partly privileged documents, and common interest privilege.
• The "Ikarian Reefer" [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 68 (Cresswell J.); [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 455 (C.A.), for the defendant underwriters.  This well-known case concerned a claim on a policy of marine insurance, which the underwriters met by alleging scuttling and fraud.  The Court of Appeal (after one of the longest appeals in English legal history) reversed the trial judge, finding that the vessel had indeed been scuttled with the privity or connivance of her owners.  The case is primarily of interest for its facts, although it also contains valuable dicta about the role of expert witnesses.
• Bank of Nova Scotia  v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd., The “Good Luck” [1992] 1 A.C. 233 (H.L.). This is the leading case on the effect of a breach of an insurance warranty.  The insurer is discharged from liability automatically, from the moment of breach.  Here the insurers were found liable to the bank, for failing (in breach of an undertaking) to inform the bank that cover had ceased, as soon as they were aware of the breach of warranty.
• Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association v Taylor [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 484 (Waller J).  It was proper for an underwriter subscribing to a policy of insurance to be sued as a representative of the other subscribers, even in the absence of a “leading underwriter” clause, or other cost-sharing arrangement.
• The “Captain Panagos DP” [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 33 (C.A.).  This scuttling case concerned the inferences to be drawn from the fact (unchallenged in the Court of Appeal) that a vessel had been deliberately cast away.  The beneficial owner of the vessel had died between the date of the loss of his ship and the date of trial.  Held, it was to be inferred that the casting away had been done with his connivance. “Ships are not cast away out of lightness of heart or sheer animal spirits” (per Lord Sumner in The Arnus [1924] AC 850).

      Non-marine Insurance and Reinsurance

• Stephen was recently instructed by Clyde & Co in PK Air Finance US Inc v Chartis Insurance UK Limited and others, an aviation insurance case in which he acted for insurers resisting claims by the owners and mortgagees of three Boeing 747 aircraft.  It was claimed that the aircraft were lost when misappropriated by an Iranian airline: see, by way of background, Blue Sky One Limited and others v Mahan Air and others [2009] EWHC 3314 (Comm) and [2010] EWHC 631 (Comm).  The case settled in September 2010, following a mediation.
• In CGU International v Astrazeneca [2005] EWHC 2755 (Comm), [2006] Lloyd’s Rep. IR 409 (Cresswell J), Stephen acted (with Christopher Butcher QC, instructed by Lovells) for the claimant reinsurers, who succeeded in overturning an arbitration award.  Held, that a US service of suit clause in the underlying policy, which obliged the insurer to submit to and abide by the outcome of US proceedings, did not affect the scope of coverage afforded by the insurance or the reinsurance, both of which were governed by English law.  Leave for a further appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused. (An application for permission to appeal against that refusal raised interesting arguments about the Court of Appeal’s power under the Human Rights Act 1998 to review “unappealable” decisions – see [2006] EWCA Civ 1340, [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 142 (C.A.) – but was also ultimately refused.)
• European International Reinsurance Company v Curzon.  Stephen was instructed by Freshfields for the claimants (an associated company of Swiss Re) in a claim to avoid an asbestos liability reinsurance cover of some £166m.  After almost three months of trial in the Commercial Court, where he was led by Gavin Kealey QC, the case settled (early 2004)
• In 2003 Stephen represented a European retrocessionaire contesting in arbitration its liability to “indemnify” its retrocedant for payments made under a commutation agreement.  Instructions were from Barlow Lyde & Gilbert.
• In 1999 Stephen acted in a Bermuda form insurance arbitration, principally concerned with determination of the year in which a claim for directors’ and officers’ (D. & O.) excess liability coverage had been (or was deemed to have been) “made and reported”.  Subsidiary issues included the scope of an “insured v insured” exclusion; and the attachment point of cover.  The governing law was New York law.  Instructed by D J Freeman.
• Excess Insurance v Mander [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 119 (Colman J), for the claimant reinsureds.  This is a leading case on the incorporation of arbitration clauses into retrocession agreements by reference to the underlying reinsurance contract.  Held, that general words of incorporation were ineffective to achieve this.
• Merrett v Capitol Indemnity Corporation [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 169 (Steyn J).  Reinsureds were not precluded from recovering from reinsurers by the reason of the fact that brokers had already gratuitously “funded” the claims.

Stephen has advised in many cases and in various contexts on the liability of professionals; but particularly in relation to the business of insurance at Lloyd’s.  He has advised the Corporation of Lloyds, Lloyd’s syndicates, integrated Lloyd’s vehicles and individual liquidators concerning the potential liability of accountants, actuaries, managing agents and brokers.  

Selected cases:

• CNA Insurance Co. Ltd v Willis Ltd: acted for Willis (instructed, together with Gavin Kealey QC, by Slaughter and May) in a US$300 million Commercial Court action arising out of the reinsurance of occupational accident risks.  The case settled in September 2009.
• Allied Dunbar v The Underwriter Insurance Company and Willis Ltd.  In 2010 Stephen again acted for Willis (this time as leading counsel, instructed by Lovells). The disputes were resolved in mediation.

Sale of goods is a staple of commercial practice, and Stephen has been involved in various cases concerning the sale of goods, often in a specialized context.  For example, he has recently advised a major gas trader in relation to quality disputes arising from its long-term “take-or-pay” gas supply contract; acted for a leading bunker supplier in its claim alleging delivery of contaminated fuel oil to its mother ships off the West Coast of Africa; and has also acted or advised in relation to a number of ship sale or ship-building disputes.  

Selected cases:

• In 2009 Stephen acted as leading counsel in several ship-building arbitrations for Korean clients (instructed by Clyde & Co).
• OW Supply v Trafigura; instructed by MFB Solicitors to act for a bunker supplier claiming delivery of contaminated fuel oil to its mother ships off the West Coast of Africa.  The case was settled following mediation in 2009.
• Zegluga Polska v T R Shipping (No. 2) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 341 (C.A.): a ship sale case for the plaintiff sellers.  The Court of Appeal held, in the plaintiffs’ favour and overruling The Aktion [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep 283, that the “Notice of Readiness” required by Clause 3 of the Norwegian Saleform meant notice of actual readiness, not of prospective readiness.
• Axel Johnson Petroleum v M.G. Mineral Group [1992] 1 W.L.R. 270.  A leading case on the scope of legal set-off.  This case established that, for the purposes of legal set-off, "mutual debts" refers to all liquidated claims, such that a cross-claim for short payment of the price on an earlier contract could be set off against a claim under a later contract for demurrage (liquidated damages). The claim and cross-claim need not arise from connected transactions.
• Vitol v Esso Australia [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 451 (C.A.).  At first instance the judge (Leggatt J) held that buyers could reject a cargo of oil sold under a “cif delivered” contract on grounds of short-shipment.  The Court of Appeal, reversing, held that the buyers were precluded from relying on this point by a “without prejudice” agreement, which it construed as representing that the point would not be taken.

Much of Stephen’s practice is concerned with arbitrations, and he is therefore familiar with the law relating to arbitration, including the mechanisms for challenging jurisdiction and the procedures for challenging arbitration awards.

Selected cases:

• CMA-CGM S.A. v. Beteiligungs-Kommanditgesellschaft MS "Northern Pioneer" Schiffahrts-gesellschaft M.B.H & Co [2002] EWCA Civ 1878 [2003] 1 WLR 1015 (C.A.).  Stephen was instructed by Holman Fenwick & Willan for the Respondent owners, who successfully resisted an application for leave to appeal from an arbitration award. The arbitrators had concluded that German participation in the NATO air operations over Serbia and Kosovo did not constitute “involvement in war”, and the charterers had not been entitled to cancel under the war clauses in four long-term time charters.  This was the first case in which the Court of Appeal considered the principles by which leave to appeal may be granted under s. 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (cf. the Nema Guidelines).
• Westacre Investments Inc. v Jugoimport SDPR Holding Company Ltd and others [2000] QB 288 (C.A.); acting for the Defendants (the former Yugoslav military sales and procurement agency) on the instructions of Holman Fenwick & Willan. This arms trading case raised the issue of whether enforcement of a Swiss arbitration award would be contrary to English public policy (Arbitration Act 1975, Section 5(3)).  The Defendants maintained that the underlying contract was to procure influence over, or to pay bribes to, Kuwaiti government officials.  The Court of Appeal (by a majority) held that even if this was so, and even if the award had been obtained by fraud, it would still be enforced where the Defendants had had an opportunity of putting these matters before the Swiss arbitral tribunal.  A Petition for leave to appeal to the House of Lords was rejected: [1999] 1 WLR 1999.
• Excess Insurance v Mander [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 119 (Colman J), for the claimant reinsureds.  This is a leading case on the incorporation of arbitration clauses into retrocession agreements by reference to the underlying reinsurance contract.  Held, that general words of incorporation were ineffective to achieve this.
• Pan Atlantic Group Inc. v Hassneh Insurance Co. of Israel [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 120 (C.A.).  An arbitration agreement required the arbitrators to be executive officials in insurance or reinsurance companies.  Mr John Butler was appointed, but then retired and became a consultant to a firm of solicitors.  Held, he was still eligible to act, since he had been qualified when appointed.

As junior counsel, Stephen made many applications for Mareva relief.  He is fully conversant with the relevant legal principles.

Selected cases:

• Surzur Overseas Ltd v Koros [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 611 (C.A.), for the plaintiff, Surzur (a subsidiary of Société Generale). This saga began with an application for a world-wide Mareva injunction (for c. US$54 million) over the assets of the Blue Flag Navigation Group and of its principal, Mr Nicholas Koros, to secure outstanding loans. The reported decision arose from a second action, alleging a conspiracy to defraud the plaintiff by (among other things) misleading the English High Court into varying that injunction using forged documents and false and perjured affidavits.  The Court of Appeal held that this claim did not infringe the rules of “witness immunity”.  A defendants’ Petition to the House of Lords was refused after an oral hearing.   The “conspiracy” case settled shortly before trial (2001).

Asset financing and the financial arrangements underpinning international trade form the background to many commercial disputes, although only rarely are they the direct subject of litigation.  Stephen acted in the following cases where they were:

Selected cases:

• Surzur Overseas Ltd v Koros [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 611 (C.A.), for the plaintiff, Surzur (a subsidiary of Société Generale). This saga began with an application for a world-wide Mareva injunction (for c. US$54 million) over the assets of the Blue Flag Navigation Group and of its principal, Mr Nicholas Koros, to secure outstanding loans. (The reported decision arose from a second action, alleging a conspiracy to defraud the plaintiff by (among other things) misleading the English High Court into varying that injunction using forged documents and false and perjured affidavits.) 
• Kredietbank v Midland Bank; Karaganda Ltd v Midland Bank [1999] Lloyd’s Rep. Bank 219 (C.A.), for the plaintiff, Karaganda Ltd. This letter of credit case concerned the requirement under UCP 500 for tender of original documents.  The Court of Appeal held (notwithstanding the terms of Art. 20(b) of UCP 500) that a document created on a word-processor, printed on a laser-printer, but not “marked as original” was nevertheless an original (cf Glencore v Bank of China [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 135).  A Petition to the House of Lords was refused.

This is an area of notorious difficulty and complexity.  Stephen has acted recently in a number of cases involving the interaction of the jurisdiction rules in the Jurisdiction Regulation (EC) 44/2001, the Lugano Convention, the Brussels Convention, and the CMR, as well as the common law rules.

Selected cases:

• Royal and Sun Alliance and another v MK Digital and others [2006] EWCA Civ 629, [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 110 (C.A.) acting (ultimately unsuccessfully) for claimants seeking to sustain English jurisdiction in relation to a claim of non-liability by a French road transport operator.
• Mora Shipping v Axa [2005] EWCA Civ 1069, [2005] 2 Lloyd’s 769 (C.A.); acting for claimants asserting that a claim under a general average guarantee given by European insurers was subject to English jurisdiction.
• Standard Steamship Owners Protection & Indemnity Association v GIE Vision Bail [2004] EWHC 2457 (Comm), [2005] Lloyds’ Rep. IR 407 (Cooke J); for Louis Duty Free Shops, an operator of shopping concessions on Festival Cruise Lines vessels. Cover for its employees had been placed by Festival’s brokers with a P&I Club, which (on Festival’s default) claimed against Louis Duty Free Shops for all unpaid calls. The jurisdictional dispute centred on whether an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Club’s Rules expressed as binding on “Members” was also binding on Louis Duty Free Shops as “Joint Entrant”.
• Siboti K/S v BP France [2003] EWHC 1278 (Comm); [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 364 (Gross J): instructed by Clyde & Co. for the Defendant, BP France, which successfully asserted its right to be sued in its country of domicile (France).  The case turned on English and European law on the incorporation of a charterparty jurisdiction clause into a bill of lading.

Selected cases:

• In re Medicaments (2000): Stephen was instructed by Cameron McKenna for the respondent pharmaceutical associations, in this, the last case in the Restrictive Practices Court. The Director-General of Fair Trading challenged the practice of resale price maintenance (RPM) on branded “over-the-counter” medicines (a practice which had been adjudged to operate in the public interest in 1970).  The first trial had to be abandoned after it became apparent that there was a real risk that one of the lay members of the Court might be biased: see [2001] 1 WLR 700 (C.A.).  (At the second trial the pharmaceutical associations withdrew their opposition to the Director-General’s challenge.)
• Poseidon Freight Forwarding Co. Ltd. v Davies Turner Southern Ltd. [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 388 (C.A.).  The Court of Appeal held that reasonable notice of trading conditions had been given, albeit that the terms, referred to on the face of documents as printed on the reverse, were not transmitted by fax.
• Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 163 (Sheen J).  This personal injury case resulted from a collision between a speedboat and a jet-ski.  Held that a jet-ski was not a “vessel used in navigation”, so that the two-year limitation period under the Maritime Conventions Act 1911 was not applicable. 

Stephen has advised and acted in a very large number of arbitrations and court hearings concerning shipping and carriage of goods by sea.  A small selection of these cases are mentioned below.

Selected cases:

• In 2010 Stephen represented Chinese charterers in the arbitration of a claim for repudiation of a charter of a vessel to be built (on the instructions of Winter Scott).  The dispute raised difficult and novel questions of force majeure, frustration, and quantification of loss – but was settled before an award could be made. 
• Between 2007 and 2010 Stephen has acted for Danish clients in two long-running arbitrations relating to the operation and termination of time-charters of a bulk carrier (instructed by Mills & Co.).
• In 2008 Stephen acted for Mexican charterers in an arbitration concerning the hire of off-shore support vessels for use in oil exploration (instructed by Thomas Cooper.
• Also in 2008 Stephen acted for Chinese owners in an arbitration reference concerning the shipment of an insect-infested cargo of rice (instructed by Thomas Cooper).
• CMA-CGM S.A. V. Beteiligungs-Kommanditgesellschaft MS "Northern Pioneer" Schiffahrts-gesellschaft M.B.H & Co [2002] EWCA Civ 1878 [2003] 1 WLR 1015 (C.A.).  Stephen was instructed by Holman Fenwick & Willan for the Respondent owners, who successfully resisted an application for leave to appeal from an arbitration award. The arbitrators had concluded that German participation in the NATO air operations over Serbia and Kosovo did not constitute “involvement in war”, and the charterers had not been entitled to cancel under the war clauses in four long-term time charters.  This was the first case in which the Court of Appeal considered the principles by which leave to appeal may be granted under s. 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (cf. the Nema Guidelines).
• Borealis v Stargas, The “Berge Sisar” [2002] AC 205 (H.L.): instructed (with Jonathan Gaisman QC) by Richards Butler for Saudi Aramco. This case is the leading authority on Section 3 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.  Saudi Aramco resisted joinder to an action, contending that it could not be liable under bills of lading pursuant to Section 3 of the Act unless it was also entitled to sue on the bills under Section 2.  Since they were no longer lawful holders of the bills, they were neither entitled, nor liable.  The House of Lords accepted this submission.
• However, in a related case, Petroleo Brasiliero S.A. and others v Mellitus Shipping Inc and others, The “Baltic Flame” [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 203 (C.A.) Saudi Aramco’s argument that it should not be joined to proceedings as a potential contributor because (a) this would outflank arbitration and jurisdiction agreements with those with whom it had contracted; and (b) a claim in contribution was unknown in its country of domicile, failed.
• The “Sun” and the “Riza” [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 314 (Timothy Walker J): led by Jonathan Gaisman QC for the plaintiff charterers.  These charterparty actions turned on whether the defendant, Captain John Vatis, had contracted personally or not.  Held, that he had chartered on behalf of a Panamanian company (Kronos Maritime Agencies S.A) and was not therefore personally liable.
• The “Breydon Merchant” [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 373 (Sheen J).  Under the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, shipowners were entitled to limit their liability to cargo owners in respect of cargo’s share of a salvage award; although they could not limit their own liability to salvors.

Stephen has been involved in various cases concerning energy and natural resources, often in a specialized context.  For example, he has recently advised a major gas trader in relation to quality disputes arising from its long-term “take-or-pay” gas supply contract; and acted for a leading bunker supplier in its claim alleging delivery of contaminated fuel oil to its mother ships off the West Coast of Africa.

Selected cases:

• OW Supply v Trafigura; instructed by MFB Solicitors to act for a bunker supplier claiming delivery of contaminated fuel oil to its mother ships off the West Coast of Africa.  The case was settled following mediation in 2009
• Axel Johnson Petroleum v M.G. Mineral Group [1992] 1 W.L.R. 270.  A leading case on the scope of legal set-off.  This case established that, for the purposes of legal set-off, "mutual debts" refers to all liquidated claims, such that a cross-claim for short payment of the price on an earlier contract could be set off against a claim under a later contract for demurrage (liquidated damages). The claim and cross-claim need not arise from connected transactions
• Vitol v Esso Australia [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 451 (C.A.).  At first instance the judge (Leggatt J) held that buyers could reject a cargo of oil sold under a “cif delivered” contract on grounds of short-shipment.  The Court of Appeal, reversing, held that the buyers were precluded from relying on this point by a “without prejudice” agreement, which it construed as representing that the point would not be taken.

Stephen Kenny has been named by The Legal 500 as a Leading Silk for Shipping in both its 2008 and 2009 editions.

• “…practice spans the full realm of marine matters…” Chambers UK 2012
• Stephen Kenny Q.C., "absolutely top draw barrister.”   Legal 500 2010
• Stephen Kenny Q.C.'s "quality of service and advice is very good.”   Legal 500 2009