James Watthey

James regularly acts in charterparty and bill of lading disputes, contentious sale and purchase, shipbuilding 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 also has experience of Admiralty matters such as arrests, collisions, groundings and ship mortgage claims, and in marine insurance and superyacht claims.  He also has expertise in aviation matters. For marine insurance cases, see the “Insurance” section.

Featured Shipping cases

• “Storm Emma” Limitation Claim, Holyhead Marina v Farrer & ors 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.

• Greek Owner v Middle-eastern Charterer 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 Achilleaswhere the breach is the specific failure to redeliver on the stated date.

• 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. Co-counsel in the Family Division [2020] EWHC 1037 (Fam), led by Charles Hale KC in the Court of Appeal [2021] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 60, and sole Counsel in the Admiralty Court (unrep.). James was first involved when an urgent without notice freezing injunction was issued against the Castle Group’s ships in support of Divorce proceedings. The injunction was successfully set aside before Holman J who praised James’s “great expertise in Admiralty law”. Eventually it was re-imposed on varied terms by the Court of Appeal. Proceedings were drafted by James in the Admiralty Court to have Castle declared as the owners of the ships and these were eventually transferred to be tried in the Family Division.

• Lambert v VJ Glover Ltd (“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.

• Close Brothers v AIS Marine 2 Ltd (“OCEAN WIND 8”) [2019] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 510. A 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.

• Deep Sea v Monjasa A/S (“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.

• A v B (arbitration claim – contracual terms – 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.

• Sun United Maritime Ltd v Kasteli Marine Inc (The “IMME”) [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 386: An appeal under section 69 and jurisdictional challenge under section 67.

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

• Med Marine v Castillo Schiffahrts-GMBH & CO KG MS (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.

• Defending a cargo claim in arbitration, arising out of shipment of bananas to Syria that are said to have suffered chilling damage.

• Advising on the right to an indemnity and/or apportionment under the Inter-Club Agreement and the proper means of claiming the same.

• A charterparty dispute in LMAA arbitration, arising out of the refusal of the Master to load iron ore that was said to present a danger of liquefaction.

• A GMAA arbitration in Hamburg arising out of the shipment onboard deck of a superyacht, which was damaged during the lifting process.

• “TE HSING”[2012] EWHC B16 (Comm); Lloyd’s Law Reporter, 21 Sep 2012; [2012] All ER (D) 115 (Sep); NLJ: 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.

• Barnes v the Charterers of the Motor Vessel (The “SNOW BUNTING”): The Admiralty Court clarified and interpreted the Regulations that govern liability for collisions in the non-tidal Thames.

• George v Coastal Marine 2004 Ltd (The “BON AMI”): 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.

• A dispute between hull underwriters and owners as to whether the H&M policy covered ransom to be paid to pirates for the release of a bulk carrier, in circumstances where a specific K&R policy was in place.

• A helicopter charter dispute, in which it was alleged that the charterer’s pilot caused the aircraft’s engines to overheat and suffer irreparable damage.