Alexander Wright KC

Alexander has a broad range of experience in general commercial disputes in both litigation and international arbitration. His experience including banking and finance, hedge fund disputes, derivatives (particularly under the ISDA Master Agreement), guarantees, purchase options, agency disputes (including claims for breaches of warranty of authority against agents), share sale and purchase disputes, commercial fraud and bribery, joint venture agreements, bailment, shareholders’ agreements, and general contractual matters. He has experience of freezing orders and other urgent injunctive relief including anti-suit injunctions.

He is very familiar with sanctions issues insofar as they relate to commercial contracts, having acted for the successful claimants in Gravelor Shipping Ltd v GTLK Asia M5 Ltd & anor [2023] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 239, a leading case on whether or not payment into a frozen account can discharge a purchase obligation under a finance lease.  Ongoing and recent instructions including disputes concerning the impact of the EU and Swiss embargoes on Russian coal on the performance of long-term sale and purchase contracts, whether or not a counter-party is ultimately beneficially owned by sanctioned Russian individuals, the lawfulness of a charterparty for the employment of an offshore vessel on the Shwe gas field in which Myanmar state entities are said to hold an interest, the alleged shipment of sanctioned Venezuelan oil, and whether or not payments can be made to a sanctioned Venezuelan entity.

Most of Alexander’s cases have an international element and Alexander has experience of jurisdictional and conflict of laws issues and requests for evidence under the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters.

His arbitration practice includes both substantive arbitral proceedings, either ad hoc or under various different arbitral body rules (LMAA, LME, LCIA, ICC, SCMA, SIAC, HKIAC, UNCITRAL, ARIAS), and challenges on grounds of want of jurisdiction, serious irregularity and errors of law (including rare second-tier appeals). He has experience of enforcement of awards under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and applications for urgent relief under section 44.

He has a niche practice in classic car litigation. He acted for Mr Tuke in widely publicised litigation against JD Classics and its Managing Director involving allegations of fraud in connection with a substantial fleet of classic cars.  Following a three-week Commercial Court fraud trial in July 2020, Alexander obtained judgment for c. £11.9 million, including by reference to novel arguments on the proper measure of loss of investment opportunity damages where an innocent party has been fraudulently induced into selling an appreciating asset.   Alexander also successfully resisted Mr Hood’s appeal that raised for the first time the question as to whether or not damages for deceit are to be discounted for the “time value” of moneys received in a fraudulently induced transaction (Tuke v Hood [2022] QB 659).

Other notable cases in this area include Piper v Hales [2013] EWHC B1 (QB), a case widely reported in the national press arising out of the engine breakdown in a replica Porsche 917 during a test run by a journalist, and Madejski v Harrison [2014] EWCA Civ 361, a claim arising out of the auction sale by Sir John Madejski of his Jaguar XJ220.

Featured Commercial Dispute Resolution cases

An Oslo seated arbitration concerning alleged breaches of a Mandate Agreement in connection with a €132m Nordic bond for green energy investment

Gravelor Shipping Ltd v GTLK Asia M5 Ltd & anor [2023] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 239 – for the successful bareboat charterers, a leading decision on the operation of the EU operations and whether or not a sanctioned counter-party is required to accept payment into a frozen account in discharge of a payment obligation under a finance lease.

Acting in a series of related Commercial Court claims arising out of the acquisition of companies in the Romanian and Maltese gambling sectors for €273m involving allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation concerning whether or not the corporate sellers were ultimately beneficially owned by a sanctioned individual

Acting for the claimant in an US$85m LCIA arbitration claim arising out of the alleged repudiation of a long-term contract for the sale of propane involving allegations that the respondent’s signatory was acting without authority and had entered into sham agreements.

Acting for the respondent in a US$200m LCIA arbitration claim concerning the impact of EU sanctions on performance of a long-term contract for the sale and purchase of Russian coal

Acting for the respondent in a US$90m LCIA arbitration claim that raises issues as to whether or not the sellers are ultimately owned or controlled by sanctioned Russian individuals

VTB Commodities DAC v JSC Antipinsky Refinery (No 1) [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 332; and (No 2) [2020] 1 WLR 1227. Acting for VTB Commodities in LCIA arbitration proceedings and a related Commercial Court Part 8 arbitration claims against a large Russian oil refinery concerning the diversion of oil cargoes, including successfully obtaining and maintaining a worldwide freezing injunction to a value of €225,000,000.

Acting for one of Russia’s largest agri-businesses and its guarantor in an LCIA arbitration involving allegations of misrepresentation against a leading investment bank in the context of a US$265m finance restructuring

Acting for the lessee and its guarantor in a US$12m Commercial Court claim brought by the lessor of three Boeing 737 aircraft for alleged unpaid rent and maintenance contributions.

Acting for a leading crane manufacturer in a US$12m ICC arbitration concerning alleged design defects in four offshore vessel cranes.

Acting in Commercial Court proceedings concerning whether or not a senior mortgagee acted unreasonably for the purposes of an inter-creditor deed in refusing permission to a borrower to make payments to a junior lender in the sums of c. US$18.5m.

Acting for the claimant in a £6 million dispute arising out of a sale and purchase agreement for the business of a facilities management company. Alexander was successful following a 10 day trial: Phoenicks Limited v Bellrock Property & Facilities Management Ltd [2021] EWHC 2639 (Comm).