To instruct Nick please contact our clerks on +44 (0)20 7842 5555 or email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Nick Vineall QC has a broadly based arbitration and litigation commercial practice.
Nick has appeared in the UK Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, and High Court (Commercial Court and Chancery Divisions), and has extensive experience of ICC LCIA and LMAA arbitrations, particularly of shipbuilding and marine engineering and offshore disputes.
Nick sits as an arbitrator and as a Deputy High Court Judge.
Nick is qualified to undertake Public Access work.
Nick is recommended in the directories as a leading silk in:
Nick is ranked as a leading silk in Shipping and Commodities in Chambers & Partners: “Particularly highly regarded for his involvement in both offshore engineering and shipbuilding disputes”: ‘He has a very persuasive, eloquent style’; ‘can be very innovative and come up with new points’. Nick has particular expertise in dealing with technical disputes and with expert evidence on scheduling, design and engineering.
Experience in Commercial court, and in LMAA, HKIAC, SIAC, ICC, LCIA and VIAC (Vietnam) tribunals.
Instructed on a major wood pellet cargo fire claim.
Instructed on a $10m cargo claim arising from damage to poorly packaged water pipes.
Instructed on a CoA dispute between Chinese aluminium exporter and HK shipping line.
Advising on pool agreement disputes.
Sun United v Kasteli Marine  2 Lloyd’s Rep. 386: An Arbitration Act appeal from a charterparty dispute establishing that section 67 appeals are not available where an issue has been submitted to the tribunal but not resolved by it.
Instructed on a very large number of newbuild disputes for both buyers and yards, involving shipyards from all over the world, and a wide range of vessels including FPSOs, drill rigs, pipelay vessels, survey vessels, ferries, chemical tankers, and cargo and container ships.
Acting on shipbuilding related refund guarantee disputes including SIAC arbitration application to restrain call on a performance guarantee.
ICC arbitration for a Chinese client concerning a substantial port craneage installation.
Acted for Awilco on two commercial court claims for charterhire of a North Sea drill rig (Crine Logic terms).
Acting on a harbour construction scheme on NEC3 terms.
Acted against Petrobras on the P36, P40, and P41 projects:  1 Lloyd’s Rep 629,  1 Lloyd’s Rep 305 CA.
UNCITRAL rules arbitration of a delay claim arising from drilling in the Bonga oil field.
ICC arbitration concerning a major oil installation in Turkmenistan.
Advice on offshore wind installation dispute.
Nick is ranked as a leading silk in Chambers & Partners: “Very good to work with and very much part of the team. He is personable and client-facing, and has none of the old-style stuffiness which you still get with some silks.”
Advising on a Hong Kong reverse takeover of a PRC exploration company.
Acting for rig owners on a threatened North Sea drill contract cancellation.
Acting for rig owners on a disputed drill contract cancellation (LCIA arbitration).
Advice for insurers on the multiparty settlement of a major fire loss to an oil rig.
UNCITRAL rules arbitration of a delay claim arising from drilling in the Bonga oil field.
ICC arbitration of major oil installation in Turkmenistan.
Advice on an offshore wind installation dispute.
Advice on off-spec product claim concerning Nigerian FPSO.
Acting for Vitol on a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation concerning a mineral supply contract with a Chilean mine.
Acting against Petrobras on the P36, P40, and P41 projects  1 Lloyd’s Rep 629,  1 Lloyd’s Rep 305 CA.
Acting for Sembawang in the Solitaire arbitration concerning a DP pipelay vessel.
Acting as expert witness in Kazakhstan proceedings concerning a Chinese farm-in agreement.
Nick is recommended for construction work in the Legal 500 where he is described as “Enthusiastic, approachable and an effective cross-examiner.” He particularly enjoys working with – and cross-examining – technical experts.
Most of his construction work now involves engineering heavy projects, either onshore or offshore, including nuclear implicated designs.
Instructed by the MoD on the defence of a £100m+ claim by a major contractor in relation to the construction of a floating jetty for berthing the UK’s fleet of nuclear submarines, let on an MPTC contract. The case involved the regulation of design and construction of nuclear implicated structures and systems.
A large number of shipbuilding disputes in arbitration, raising a vast range of technical construction points including steelwork quality, NDT weld testing, main engine condition and performance, CFD analysis of heat transfer in oil tanks, and paint and coatings defects.
Acting for the employer on a harbour construction contract on NEC3 terms.
Acting for a Chinese contractor on a dispute concerning a major port offloading machinery installation.
P36 – a long running dispute on the costs of an drill rig upgrade:  1 Lloyd’s Rep 629,  1 Lloyd’s Rep 305 CA.
Nick has been instructed on a wide range of commercial disputes both in litigation (principally Commercial Court and Chancery division) and in a range of arbitral tribunals and a wide variety of subject matter including sanctions and directors duties.
Very experienced in urgent interlocutory work in particular applications for freezing orders. He appeared for the FCA in the Supreme Court in the leading case on the giving of cross-undertakings by regulators when freezing orders are granted: FSA v Sinaloa Gold (Barclays Bank plc intervening)  2 AC 28. Has made over 40 applications for freezing orders over a diverse range of disputes.
Nick is instructed on the quantum hearing in the Bank Mellat claim against the UK government: the Iranian Bank claims damages of £4 billion arising from the unlawful Treasury order sanctioning the Iranian bank on the grounds of involvement in nuclear proliferation activities. In the Supreme Court case on liability Nick acted for the shareholders of the bank: Bank Mellat v HM Treasury  AC 700.
He acted in the Court of Appeal for a Canadian company accused of market manipulation in FSA v Canada Inc  Lloyds Rep (FC) 207, and for the FSA on its first ever injunction to restrain market abuse. He has many years’ experience of advising and appearing in FSMA perimeter policing disputes, particularly unauthorised collective investment schemes and investment scams of various kinds.
He acted for over 1200 claimant investors in a GLO claim against Capita, the authorised corporate director of the collapsed Arch cru investment funds.
He was instructed on a Commercial Court claim for a major Chinese Bank defending a claim for alleged breach of an NDA.
Nick is ranked by Chambers as a leading silk for financial services work. Comments include “He has a silken charm, and is a decent and honourable opponent.” “He knows what the FCA wants and he gives it to them. He’s very confident, very smart and very friendly.”
Nick has 30 years’ experience acting on FSMA (and before that FSA and Banking Act) claims across a broad range of authorisation and enforcement proceedings involving the regulator, as well as consumer claims against providers and related professional negligence claims for and against advisers and promoters.
He has acted on claims arising in relation to pension transfers, tax mitigation schemes, interest rate swaps, collective investment schemes, death bonds, Ponzi frauds, landbanking, boiler room frauds, in addition to the mis-selling of rather less exotic products. He frequently advises on perimeter points concerning investment and/or insurance products, and has advised on the status of Sharia-compliant investment products.
CGL Group Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc  EWCA Civ 1073;  1 W.L.R. 2137: Whether Banks assuming responsibility to customers to carry out redress scheme according to Bank’s agreement with FCA.
Burns v FCA,  EWCA Civ 2140: Conflict of interest and breach of fiduciary duty by non-executive director, whether rendering director not fit and proper.
Acting for 1200 investors in a £45m claim arising from the failed Arch cru investment Funds against Capita (the ACD) in a Chancery Division claim brought under a group litigation order.
FSA v Sinaloa Gold FSA v Sinaloa Gold (Barclays Bank Plc intervening)  2 AC 28: Which established that public authorities need not give a cross-undertaking in damages to defendants or third parties when seeking injunctive relief.
Acting for over 100 investors in a claim against the promoters of a failed Enterprise Zone tax mitigation schemes.
Acting for investors against Zurich Advice Network on mis-selling claims concerning failed tax mitigation schemes (Tower/UKFS scheme).
Bank Mellat v HM Treasury  AC 700: Representing the shareholders of Bank Mellat in the successful Supreme Court challenge to a Treasury order sanctioning the Iranian bank on the grounds of involvement in nuclear proliferation activities.
FSA v Canada Inc  Lloyds Rep (FC) 207: Representing the providers of an algorithmic trading platform accused of market manipulation.
Acting for an IFA firm subject to a s.166 notice and PBR in relation to pensions transfers.
Much of Nick’s work is in international arbitration.
Nick is a supporting member of the LMAA and a member of the CIETAC and KLRCA panels.
Nick has arbitrated disputes as sole or panel arbitrator under LCIA, LMAA, HKIAC and VIAC terms, in London, Hong Kong and Vietnam.
RBRG Trading v Sinocore  EWCA Civ 838: The leading case on the public policy defence to enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, holding that Sinocore was able to enforce an award arising out a sale contract despite having produced forged bills of lading in an attempt to procure payment.
A v B  EWHC 3417 (Comm): Whether permissible to start two inked LCIA arbitrations with a single request for arbitration, whether right to object waived.
BV Scheepswerf Damen Gorinchem v Marine Institute;  EWHC 1810 (Comm);  2 Lloyd’s Rep. 351; length delay by arbitrator in rendering award, whether serious irregularity, whether prejudice shown.
Sun United Maritime Ltd v Kasteli Marine  EWHC 1476 (Comm);  1 W.L.R. 1527;  2 Lloyd’s Rep. 386: Scope and meaning of “substantive jurisdiction” in s67 Arbitration Act 1996.
Prekons Insaat Sanayi AS v Rowlands Castle Contracting Group Ltd  EWHC 1367 (Comm);  1 Lloyd’s Rep. 98: Whether a cross claim should be stayed to arbitration.
For help and advice talk to a member of our clerking team. They can advise on the best options for your matter.
Call: +44 (0) 20 7842 5555