James Watthey

James regularly acts in charterparty and bill of lading disputes, including classic off-hire and demurrage disputes, liquefaction and other dangerous cargo cases, off-spec bunkers, Inter-Club Agreement claims, and cargo claims.

In other shipping cases, he deals with contentious sale and purchase including MOAs on SALEFORM terms, shipbuilding and repair contracts, piracy, forward freight agreements (FFAs), claims arising out of carriage of goods by rail, air and road, and commodity sale and purchase agreements, and crew/passenger claims. He handles Admiralty matters such as arrests, collisions, towage, groundings, ownership disputes and ship mortgage claims, as well as marine insurance and superyacht claims.  He also has expertise in aviation matters, including helicopters.

For marine insurance cases, see the “Insurance” section.

Featured Shipping cases

“The STEMA BARGE II” [2025] Defending the MCA in a EUR30m claim by the owners of sub-sea power cables damaged by a dragged anchor during sea defence works off Dover. A Part 20 claim by the operators of The Stema Barge II against the MCA and Marine Management Organisation asserted failures in the approval of the marine planning application for the works. This involved complex interplay of public and private law duties and remedies as well as technical and navigational issues. All 11 other parties were represented by Silks. Settled on favourable terms.

UAE Owners v Saudi Charterers [2025 onwards] LMAA Supplytime dispute. Won the trial of preliminary issues on whether late payment under a settlement agreement revived the underlying claims, then won a further PFA on Kostas Melas grounds.

Russian Buyers v German Sellers [2025] Complex MOA / Sanctions arbitration. Successfully obtained the return of the deposits paid under 3 MOAs after the sellers purported to cancel the transactions and retain the deposits on the basis of a bespoke Sanctions clause. Leading Richard Nicholl against a Silk.

Financier v Greek Owner [2024 onwards] Leading a team of Counsel in 3 LMAA ship management arbitrations in which the disputes arose from a very public scramble for the control of a fleet between the family firm that had previously owned the ships and their erstwhile financiers. Also part of the BVI Counsel team led by Stephen Cogley KC and dealt with a related Interpleader / Stakeholder application.

“The LORD HASSAN” [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 52, which expanded the Court’s power of sale under s.44 of the Arbitration Act (as per “The Moscow Stars” to liened cargo owned by third parties.

“The BIG KAHUNA” [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 109, which established the scope of application of the forum non conveniens principle in Limitation claims.

“The SONGA KARI” [2023] EWHC 3501 (Comm) Interim urgent applications for injunctions enforcing obligations under a series of Letters of Indemnity to provide substitute security and funds to defend claims in Singapore arbitration brought by cargo interests under the “Bremen Max” principle.

Greek Seller v Turkish Buyer [2023] MOA dispute. A claim for fraudulent misrepresentation as to the condition of an oil tanker, which settled just before the final hearing. Led by Sean O’Sullivan KC with Jacob Haddad.

Greek Owner v Middle-eastern Charterer [2022] Successful sole counsel in a final LMAA hearing concerning a failure to redeliver a vessel in accordance with a firm notice of redelivery. This concerned 3 novel points of law: (1) the effect of a firm notice of redelivery (2) the effect of a final voyage clause in this situation and (3) the applicability or otherwise of “The Achilleas”where the breach is the specific failure to redeliver on the stated date. 

Holyhead Marina v Farrer & ors [2021] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 221; [2022] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 463 on the meaning of “dock” under s.191 Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and whether the owners of Holyhead Marina were entitled to limit their liability by bringing the marina within that definition. Sole Counsel in the Admiralty Court and led by Nigel Cooper KC in the Court of Appeal.

Private Part 62 hearing, unrep. Obtained a post-Brexit anti-suit injunction against Greek proceedings, retraining their use for anything other than security in support of London arbitration. At the return date, the Respondent unsuccessfully sought to persuade the Judge that EU law principles still affected his powers and then agreed to give undertakings to a similar effect.

“HAPPY LUCKY” v “FESCO VOYAGER” [2020] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 317. Appearing alone against a Silk, James successfully resisted an antisuit injunction application which was brought on the purported basis that the parties had agreed to exclusive English jurisdiction under the Admiralty Solicitors Group’s ASG Form. The Court found that the putative agreement had not been finalised, contrary to the practice of P&I Club claims executives and Admiralty lawyers.

Greek Owners v Singaporean Charterers [2020]. James was appointed jointly by the parties as an agreed independent expert charterparty barrister to issue a binding determination on the appropriate daily rate for the calculation of damages. This involved interesting questions of causation and foreseeability requiring detailed understanding of market practice.

Crowther v Crowther / Castle Ship Management [2021] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 60. Co-counsel in the Family Division [2020] EWHC 1037 (Fam), led by Charles Hale QC in the Court of Appeal, and sole Counsel in the Admiralty Court (unrep.). Ownership dispute relating to a fleet of offshore support vessels alleged to have been marital assets in a divorce.

“The REJOICE” [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep Plus 21 An Admiralty Court claim arising out of a catastrophic hand injury to a share fisherman, which involved a sensitive Fundamental Dishonesty application and well as requiring deep understanding of matters of seamanship and vessel management. James successfully defeated the claim.

“The OCEAN WIND 8” [2019] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 510. An Admiralty Court claim for a substantial shortfall under a mortgage over an offshore support vessel in which the defence (which James successfully defeated) was that the vessel was sold at an undervalue.

“The ALHANI” [2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 563. The first decision on whether claims for wrongful misdelivery without presentation of bills of lading are caught by the Hague Rules time bar. Led by Stephen Kenny KC. See now Fimbank Plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd [2024] UKSC 38 which filled “the Alhani Gap”.

A v B (arbitration claim – foreign language) [2018] EWHC 1370 (Comm)Successfully challenging a decision by an LMAA Tribunal that they did not have jurisdiction. The Court decided that a Russian arbitration clause in an Asbatankvoy form which was translated as “Arbitration proceedings – London international arbitration court” simply required reference to London arbitration and not to the LCIA. Following appointment of LMAA Full Members and their acceptance on LMAA Terms, the reference was to proceed on the basis of those terms.

Austen v Pearl Motor Yachts Ltd [2014] EWHC 3544 (Comm) – a technical dispute concerning the cause of failure of the vessel’s hull, which gave way after light grounding. The trial, before Eder J, involved complex expert evidence.

“The “IMME” [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 386. An appeal under section 69 and jurisdictional challenge under section 67.

“The “BERIL 1” [2014] EWHC 398 (Comm); [2014] 1 W.L.R. 3472, a relief from sanctions application after which which James subsequently won at trial, and recovered an indemnity for Turkish shipowners against their hull underwriters.

“The “CONTI CARTAGENA” [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 162 a decision on the proper method of construing apparently conflicting jurisdiction clauses. The claim is for a declaration of non-liability for damage suffered in towage operations in Turkey.

“The TE HSING” [2012] EWHC B16 (Comm); Lloyd’s Law Reporter, 21 Sep 2012; [2012] All ER (D) 115 (Sep); NLJ 5 October The Commercial Court clarified the rules on what is required in order to obtain security for costs against a party that is resident outside the EU. The case was then settled, and James’s Chinese shipowner clients obtained a full indemnity from their hull underwriters in respect of the CTL of the vessel.

“The SNOW BUNTING” [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 647, in which the Admiralty Court clarified and interpreted the Regulations that govern liability for collisions in the non-tidal Thames.

“The “BON AMI” [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 356, successfully defending an unsafe port claim against wharfingers in a 3 day trial before Gloster J. The decision establishes the duty of care for wharfingers who own and control the quay wall but not the tidal foreshore on which moored vessels come to ground at low water.