Commercial Arbitration Judgments: Significant Cases

Operafund Eco-Invest Sicav Plc v. Kingdom Of Spain [2025] EWHC 2874 (Comm) involves the assignability of ICSID Convention arbitral awards against sovereign states, highlighting important aspects of arbitration claims in commercial settings.  

Eletson Gas LLC v. A Limited and others [2025] EWHC 1855 (Comm) discusses the appointment of an arbitrator by a deadlocked company governed by BVI Law, as well as the ability of a party to rely on a previous US arbitral award that remains unregistered and is under challenge for being obtained by fraud.  

In Pannonia Bio Zrt v. Chemia Bomer E. Marciniak sp.k. [2025] EWHC 1005 (Comm), a challenge was made under section 67 of the (UK) Arbitration Act 1996 against the decision of an LCIA arbitration tribunal. The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over an individual’s claim due to a statutory business transformation under Art 584 of the Polish Commercial Companies Code, which transferred all contractual rights, including those under arbitration agreements, to a successor company, leaving the individual unable to refer to arbitration and the tribunal with no jurisdiction to resolve the claim.  

Google LLC v. NAO Tsargrad Media and No Fond Pravoslavnogo Televideniya [2024] EWHC 2212 (Comm) showcases how Google was granted anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions against Russian companies to prevent them from seeking to enforce in foreign jurisdictions Astreinte orders that imposed compounding fines exceeding US$1.8 octillion, all obtained in breach of exclusive jurisdiction and arbitration agreements.  

The case AZ v. BY [2024] EWHC 1847 (Comm); [2024] 2 Lloyds rep 269 illustrates that the outcome of arbitration claims is governed by the Dispositif within the award rather than the narrative reasons for the decision.  

Finally, Republic of Kosovo v. Contourglobal Kosovo LLC [2024] EWHC 877 (Comm) involved an application under section 86 of the (UK) Arbitration Act 1996 by the Government of Kosovo that challenged the award by the majority of an ICC Tribunal. This challenge was based on the tribunal having created a reasonable expectation that it would not determine quantum without further evidence or submissions, which was ultimately dismissed.

Viegas and others v. Cutrale [2025] EWHC 3158 (Comm)

Claim by over 1500 orange growers against orange juice producers in Brazil for anti-competitive cartel activity, raising important issues in commercial court judgments. A preliminary issue was whether claims were time barred according to Brazilian laws. Ultimately, the claims were dismissed as time barred, giving effect to decisions of the highest relevant Court in Brazil despite challenges from the claimants.

Beograd Innovation Ltd v Somovidis [2025] EWHC 1182 (Comm); [2025] 1 WLR 3208

In this case, a debtor made bankrupt in Russia saw a creditor bringing a claim in the High Court for enforcement of a Russian judgment against the debtor’s properties in England. The debtor applied for a stay of claim on the grounds that Russian bankruptcy law precluded making of claims outside bankruptcy. The issue was resolved in favor of the Russian claimant, illustrating the complexities involved in international arbitration claims.

Palmali Shipping Sa V Litasco SA [2025] EWHC 1149 (Comm)

The contract of affreightment was void as a matter of Swiss law because, when entered into by the defendant company’s chief executive officer, there was a clear conflict of interest between his personal interests and those of the defendant, which the claimant company was well aware of. Additionally, the parties had not intended for the contract to have legal effect, leading to its partial voidness under English law as an agreement to agree.

Coupang Corp v. DAZN Group Limited [2025] EWHC 1254 (Comm)

In this legal case, the parties entered into a contract whereby the defendants would sublicense to the claimant a streaming service for the broadcast rights of the club world cup football competition. The court examined whether the minimum necessary for a concluded agreement had been established and considered whether specific performance should be ordered or if damages would suffice as an adequate remedy.

Macdonald Hotels Limited v. Bank Of Scotland Plc [2025] EWHC 32 (Comm)

The terms of the facility agreement precluded the borrower from disposing of assets or creating any security without prior approval. The Bank did not act in bad faith by refusing to consent to the borrower’s request to grant security to another lender. Although the provisions were subject to an implied term requiring the bank to act in good faith, this was not breached as the bank prioritized its own commercial best interests over those of its customer.

Songa Product and Chemical Tankers Iii As v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2024] EWHC 3452 (Comm)

This dispute involved the proper interpretation of clause 29 of the Baltic and International Maritime Council (“BIMCO”) Barecon 2001 standard form of bareboat charter. An appeal was made under s.69 of the (UK) Arbitration Act 1996 from the LMAA tribunal, with the question of whether the owners were entitled to retake possession at a port convenient to them, and if this entitled them to demand that the ship be sailed by Charterers from Stockton, California to Trogir, when they could reasonably have taken possession at Stockton.

Gorbachev v. Guriev [2024] EWHC 2174 (Comm)

The claim by the claimant asserting entitlement to 24.75% of the defendant’s shares in PJSC PhosAgro, a Russian company publicly quoted in both Moscow and the London Stock Exchange (“LSE”), was dismissed following a 23-day trial, highlighting the rigorous nature of legal cases in corporate disputes.

Granville Technology Group Limited (In Liquidation) and Ors v. LG Display Co. Ltd [2024] EWHC 13 (Comm)

This claim addressed how damages in a follow-on competition law claim against cartel members are to be quantified and involved discussions on the territorial scope of EU competition law concerning anti-competitive agreements made outside the EU.

Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Brightline Holdings LLC [2023] EWHC 2240 (Comm)

In this case, the defendant wrongly attempted to terminate its contract with the claimant, under which it had been licensed to use the Virgin brand, by alleging that the brand was no longer of international high repute and that continued use would damage the defendant's reputation. The case involved a detailed analysis over 11 days of extensive technical and statistical evidence, further emphasizing the complexities of commercial court judgments.