• Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process and Industrial Developments Ltd. Philip acted for Nigeria in this high-profile Commercial Court action to set aside  an arbitral award worth over US$11 billion.  Robin Knowles J gave judgment for Nigeria in October 2023 ([2023] EWHC 2638 (Comm)), finding that the award was tainted by a massive fraud, involving bribes paid to government officials to secure the underlying contract, the secret obtaining and use by P&ID of Nigeria’s confidential internal legal documents during the arbitration and perjury in the arbitration. This followed Sir Ross Cranston having granted in September 2020 an unprecedented extension of time for Nigeria to bring its challenge under s.70(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 and relief from sanctions – [2020] EWHC 2379 (Comm). The fraud was all the more significant given that the award’s value was more than that of Nigeria’s health, education and defence budgets combined and given that it involved serious misconduct in the arbitration by a barrister and by a solicitor. In a postscript to his judgment, Robin Knowles J has commented on the potential questions that may arise out of the fraud as to the conduct of arbitration in England and abroad.
• Republic of Mozambique v Credit Suisse, Privinvest & Ors. Ongoing, Commercial Court litigation commenced by Mozambique against Credit Suisse, Privinvest and others alleging bribery and conspiracy in relation to significant naval, fisheries and coastal protection investments in Mozambique, seeking more than US$2.5 billion in compensation. Philip acts for the Privinvest parties. A 12 week trial took place in autumn 2023, in which Philip led on a number of aspects of the case, including on performance of the underlying contracts. Numerous judgments have been made in the proceedings including on significant issues of disclosure (e.g. [2022] EWHC 3054 (Comm), [2023] EWHC 514 (Comm), [2023] EWHC 91 (Comm), [2023] EWHC 1148 (Comm)) and, relatedly, on strike out for failure by Mozambique to give proper disclosure ([2023] EWHC 1650 (Comm)).
• Czech Republic v Diag Human SE and Josef Stava. Commercial Court litigation in which the Czech Republic seeks to overturn a 2022 BIT award against it in the sum of c.US$730 million. Philip successfully represented Diag Human and Mr Stava in the BIT arbitration, in which it was held that the Czech Republic had breached its Treaty obligations to them, including as a result of its egregious interference in an arbitral review process. He continues to act for them now, as defendants to the Czech Republic’s challenge. This is a long-running dispute relating to wrongdoing by the Czech Health Minister in the early 1990s and involving interference in and corruption of the arbitral review process by the Czech State. A 2-week Commercial Court hearing took place in January-February 2024 before Foxton J. It was concerned primarily with the s.68 challenge and whether any of the s.67 challenge is precluded by s.73 of the Act. Another 2-week trial is set down for June 2024.
• Diag Human SE v Czech Republic PCA Case 2018-20. US$2.4 billion investment treaty claim against Czech Republic arising out Treaty breaches by the Czech state and difficulties in enforcing a 2008 Czech commercial arbitration award, including in England [2014] EWHC 1639 (Comm), Austria and the Netherlands (in contrast to successful enforcement in Luxembourg and Belgium).
• Durnont v Fazita and ors. International derivative action against alleged fraudsters in Poland. Philip acts for Durnont in this claim for c.€100 million concerning wrongdoing in relation to a Polish property investment fund. Part 19 permission to continue was obtained in May 2023 – [2023] EWHC 1294 (Ch). One aspect of that is going to the Court of Appeal in March 2024.
• UNCITRAL Rules arbitration (2022). Claim for US$160 million against a West African state-owned entity in relation to a planned electricity power project. Philip successfully represented the investor against the West African state-owned entity, which was found to have breached its obligations to the investor in relation to construction and operation of a combined oil/gas electricity plant.
• LCIA arbitration (2022). Dispute between former partners in a major Russian bank involving allegations of fraud and duress arising out of a call on loan notes worth US$90 million. The dispute centred on whether the expropriation of the bank by the Russian state had been brought about by the independent acts of the Russian financial regulator (on the instructions of President Putin), in particular following financial constraints imposed following the Russian occupation of Crimea, or by a business competitor prompting those steps.  An award favourable to Philip’s clients was rendered in early 2023.
• Carpatsky Petroleum Co v PJSC Ukrnafta [2020] EWHC 769 (Comm), [2018] EWHC 2516 (Comm): action to enforce Stockholm arbitration award in England for US$148 million. Preliminary issue of whether a fraud case could be pleaded to resist enforcement, applying the Westacre. Substantive issues included as to law applicable to arbitration agreement and issue estoppel in proceedings to enforce arbitral awards as a result of positions taken in earlier supervisory jurisdiction challenge proceedings and other enforcement proceedings.
• PL Holdings v Poland (Commercial Court) – Philip acted on behalf of PL Holdings in its action to enforce in England a Stockholm arbitration award for PLN 653 million (relating to the Benelux-Poland BIT) against Poland, being resisted by Poland in reliance on Slovak Republic v Achmea BV (ECJ case 284/16). Issue as to impact of Brexit on English court application of Achmea.
• John Paylor and others v Junie Conrad Omari Bowers and others [2018] EWHC 826 (Ch): acted for insolvency practitioners in fraud action against bankrupts/directors of insolvent companies tracing proceeds of fraud held in complex offshore structures. Freezing injunctions and search orders. Issue concerning conduct of search order and if, and how, documents held by supervising solicitor should be produced to claimants.
• ICC arbitration Zurich (2017-2018): US$138 million dispute arising out of barter arrangements between foreign investor and Venezuelan state-owned mining company. Issues as to jurisdiction, fraud and corruption, application of mandatory laws, ability of state to rely on its own national law to negate arbitration agreement. Related LMAA arbitrations in London and arbitrations in New York.
• Qingdao Huiquan Shipping Co v Shanghai Dong He Xin Industry Group Co Ltd [2018] EWHC 3009 (Comm): anti-suit injunction to restrain foreign proceedings, obtained despite foreign considerable elapse of time.
• Grove Park Properties Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2018] EWHC 3618 (Comm) and [2018] EWHC 3521 (Comm) – ongoing: claim concerning alleged fraud and forgery in respect of financing transaction documents, including swap agreement under ISDA Master Agreement.
• CMOC v Persons Unknown (Commercial Court): freezing injunctions against persons unknown in relation to email hacking fraud and illegal transfer of funds from London branch of Chinese bank.
• IPM Energy Trading Ltd v Carillion Energy Services Ltd (Commercial Court) [2017] EWHC 1399 (Comm): dispute concerning the implementation of the UK government CESP scheme imposing carbon offset obligations on power generators.

Philip has a busy banking and finance practice, covering a wide range of disputes, including mis-selling claims, disputes under the ISDA Master Agreement, fraud on loans, sovereign bond disputes, trade finance matters and disputes arising out of banks investing as joint venture partners.  He is described in The Legal 500, rankings for banking & finance as having “good client skills, excellent attention to detail and great advocacy in the High Court and Court of Appeal.”

• Republic of Mozambique v Credit Suisse, Privinvest & Ors.  Ongoing, Commercial Court litigation commenced by Mozambique against Credit Suisse, Privinvest and others alleging bribery and conspiracy in relation to significant naval, fisheries and coastal protection investments in Mozambique, seeking more than US$2.5 billion in compensation. Philip acts for the Privinvest parties. A 12 week trial took place in autumn 2023, in which Philip led on a number of aspects of the case, including on performance of the underlying contracts. Numerous judgments have been made in the proceedings including on significant issues of disclosure (e.g. [2022] EWHC 3054 (Comm), [2023] EWHC 514 (Comm), [2023] EWHC 91 (Comm), [2023] EWHC 1148 (Comm)) and, relatedly, on strike out for failure by Mozambique to give proper disclosure ([2023] EWHC 1650 (Comm)). The investments involved significant guarantees from Credit Suisse and VTB have been the subject of financial authority regulatory investigations and settlements in the USA, UK and Switzerland.
• Grove Park Properties Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2018] EWHC 3618 (Comm) and [2018] EWHC 3521 (Comm) – ongoing: claim concerning alleged fraud and forgery in respect of financing transaction documents, including swap agreement under ISDA Master Agreement.
• LCIA Arbitration (ongoing) – dispute concerning restructuring of loan arrangements between Russian lender and Dutch holding company borrower and its subsidiary Indonesian telecommunications business, in particular as to whether restructuring triggered the pledge obligations of the directors standing behind the borrower.
• Durnont v Fazita & ors (Commercial Court) – ongoing: derivative claim in relation to fraud on a closed-end investment fund usingimproper convertible bond repayments. Philip acts for Durnont in this claim for c.€100 million concerning wrongdoing in relation to a Polish property investment fund. Part 19 permission to continue was obtained in May 2023 – [2023] EWHC 1294 (Ch). The application for permission to continue against the bank is going to the Court of Appeal in March 2024.
• LCIA arbitration (2022). Dispute between former partners in a major Russian bank involving allegations of fraud and duress arising out of a call on loan notes worth US$90 million. The dispute centred on whether the expropriation of the bank by the Russian state had been brought about by the independent acts of the Russian financial regulator (on the instructions of President Putin), in particular following financial constraints imposed following the Russian occupation of Crimea, or by a business competitor prompting those steps.  An award favourable to Philip’s clients was rendered in early 2023.
• LCIA Arbitration (2016) – claim by Russian shareholder in Moscow property joint venture with state-owned bank. Issues concerning improper related party transactions, diversion of bank investment funds, corruption and the jurisdiction of tribunal to consider certain fraud allegations.
• ICC Arbitration (2015) – complex multi-jurisdiction dispute involving English entity financing sale and purchase transactions between Chilean commodities traders and Chinese buyers, with disputes in ICC, HKIAC and Beijing Arbitration Commission. Issues include as to jurisdiction of English court in support of London arbitration to freeze proceeds of deceit in Singapore.
• Diag Human SE v Czech Republic (Commercial Court, 2013-14) [2014] EWHC 1639 (Comm) and [2013] EWHC 3190 (Comm) – Arbitration award enforcement action in English Commercial Court against sovereign state, including by way of third party debt order over sovereign bond payments through banks in London and Luxembourg. Enforcement action reported at [2014] EWHC 1639 (Comm). Additional question of whether security for costs is available to an award debtor in an enforcement action reported at [2013] EWHC 3190 (Comm).
• A v B and ors (Commercial Court, 2011) [2011] EWHC 2905 (Comm) unreported – Application for freezing injunction against London bank over sovereign bond payments by state for payment of bondholder coupons. Issues as to court jurisdiction to grant freezing injunction against third party under Chabra jurisdiction where possible sovereign immunity of primary respondent, as to nature of bond payments and whether constituted flawed assets and as to impact of freezing orders of this nature on sovereign debt market.

Philip has acted in two of the largest civil fraud cases to come before the English courts in recent years. He  is recommended as a silk for fraud and is described as “very pragmatic and solution focused” and “excellent. He takes the lead and is very experienced in fraud [disputes!].”

• Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process and Industrial Developments Ltd. Philip acted for Nigeria in this high-profile Commercial Court action to set aside  an arbitral award worth over US$11 billion.  Robin Knowles J gave judgment for Nigeria in October 2023 ([2023] EWHC 2638 (Comm)), finding that the award was tainted by a massive fraud, involving bribes paid to government officials to secure the underlying contract, the secret obtaining and use by P&ID of Nigeria’s confidential internal legal documents during the arbitration and perjury in the arbitration. This followed Sir Ross Cranston having granted in September 2023 an unprecedented extension of time for Nigeria to bring its challenge under s.70(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 and relief from sanctions – [2020] EWHC 2379 (Comm).  The fraud was all the more significant given that the award’s value was more than Nigeria’s health, education and defence budgets and given that it involved serious misconduct in the arbitration by an English qualified barrister and solicitor. In a postscript to his judgment, Robin Knowles J has commented on the potential questions that may arise out of the fraud as to the conduct of arbitration in England and abroad.
• Republic of Mozambique v Credit Suisse, Privinvest & Ors. Ongoing, Commercial Court litigation commenced by Mozambique against Credit Suisse, Privinvest and others alleging bribery and conspiracy in relation to significant naval, fisheries and coastal protection investments in Mozambique, seeking more than US$2.5 billion in compensation. Philip acts for the Privinvest parties. A 12 week trial took place in autumn 2023, in which Philip led on a number of aspects of the case, including on performance of the underlying contracts. Numerous judgments have been made in the proceedings including on significant issues of disclosure (e.g. [2022] EWHC 3054 (Comm), [2023] EWHC 514 (Comm), [2023] EWHC 91 (Comm), [2023] EWHC 1148 (Comm)) and, relatedly, on strike out for failure by Mozambique to give proper disclosure ([2023] EWHC 1650 (Comm)).
• Czech Republic v Diag Human SE and Josef Stava. Commercial Court litigation in which the Czech Republic seeks to overturn a 2022 BIT award against it in the sum of c.US$730 million. Philip successfully represented Diag Human and Mr Stava in the BIT arbitration, in which it was held that the Czech Republic had breached its Treaty obligations to them. He continues to act for them now, as defendants to the Czech Republic’s challenge. This is a long-running dispute relating to wrongdoing by the Czech Health Minister in the early 1990s and involving allegations that the Czech State interfered with and corrupted an arbitral review process in an underlying commercial arbitration in the Czech Republic prior to the BIT arbitration. A 2-week Commercial Court hearing took place in January-February 2024 before Foxton J. It was concerned primarily with the s.68 challenge and whether any of the s.67 challenge is precluded by s.73 of the Act. Another 2-week trial is set down for June 2024.
• Durnont v Fazita & ors (Commercial Court) – ongoing: derivative claim in relation to fraud on a closed-end investment fund usingimproper convertible bond repayments. Philip acts for Durnont in this claim for c.€100 million concerning wrongdoing in relation to a Polish property investment fund. Part 19 permission to continue was obtained in May 2023 – [2023] EWHC 1294 (Ch). The application for permission to continue against the bank is going to the Court of Appeal in March 2024.
• LCIA arbitration (2022). Dispute between former partners in a major Russian bank involving allegations of fraud and duress arising out of a call on loan notes worth US$90 million. The dispute centred on whether the expropriation of the bank by the Russian state had been brought about by the independent acts of the Russian financial regulator (on the instructions of President Putin), in particular following financial constraints imposed following the Russian occupation of Crimea, or by a business competitor prompting those steps.  An award favourable to Philip’s clients was rendered in early 2023.
• Grove Park Properties Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2018] EWHC 3618 (Comm) and [2018] EWHC 3521 (Comm) ongoing: claim concerning alleged fraud and forgery by the bank in respect of financing transaction documents, including swap agreement under the ISDA Master Agreement.
• Carpatsky Petroleum Co v PJSC Ukrnafta [2020] EWHC 769 (Comm), [2018] EWHC 2516 (Comm): action to enforce Stockholm arbitration award in England for US$148 million. Preliminary issue of whether a fraud case could be pleaded to resist enforcement, applying the Westacre. Substantive issues included as to law applicable to arbitration agreement and issue estoppel in proceedings to enforce arbitral awards as a result of positions taken in earlier supervisory jurisdiction challenge proceedings and other enforcement proceedings.
• Diag Human SE v Czech Republic PCA Case 2018-20 –US$2.4 billion investment treaty claim against Czech Republic arising out of difficulties in enforcing a 2008 Czech commercial arbitration award, including in England [2014] EWHC 1639 (Comm), Austria and the Netherlands (in contrast to successful enforcement in Luxembourg and Belgium). Long-running dispute relating to wrongdoing by the Czech Health Minister in the early 1990s and involving allegations that the Czech State interfered with and corrupted the arbitral review process.
• John Paylor and others v Junie Conrad Omari Bowers and others [2018] EWHC 826 (Ch): acted for insolvency practitioners in fraud action against bankrupts/directors of insolvent companies tracing proceeds of fraud held in complex offshore structures. Freezing injunctions and search orders. Issue concerning conduct of search order and if, and how, documents held by supervising solicitor should be produced to claimants.
• CMOC v Persons Unknown (2018 Commercial Court): freezing injunctions against persons unknown in relation to email hacking fraud and illegal transfer of funds from London branch of Chinese bank.
• ICC Arbitration (2018) – dispute involving allegations of fraud and corruption in commercial transactions involving state- owned entity. Issues include identification of the applicable law under which allegations to be determined and consequent impact on validity of underlying contract and arbitration agreement, duty of tribunal to investigate fraud of its own motion and relevance of Interpol Red Notice in fraud allegations.
• Sovarex v Markov (Commercial Court, 2016) – claim for deceit in relation to creditworthiness of commodities buyer and associated interim freezing relief against buyer and its controlling shareholder. Issue as to jurisdiction of court to grant relief over non-party to arbitration following the clarification of the jurisdiction by Males J in Cruz City.
• LCIA Arbitration (2016) – claim by Russian shareholder in Moscow property joint venture with state-owned bank. Issues concerning improper related party transactions, corruption and the jurisdiction of tribunal to consider certain fraud allegations.
• ICC Arbitration (2015) – complex multi-jurisdiction dispute involving English entity financing sale and purchase transactions between Chilean commodities traders and Chinese buyers, with disputes in ICC, HKIAC and Beijing Arbitration Commission. Issues include as to jurisdiction of English court in support of London arbitration to freeze proceeds of deceit in Singapore.
• LCIA Arbitration (2013) – US$2 billion dispute concerning the Russian and Ukrainian mining and metals industry involving questions of fraud, reflective loss and entitlement to injunctive relief (led by Joe Smouha KC).
• ICC Arbitration (2013) – dispute arising out of fraudulent management of Caribbean investment trust (Bahamian law) in Italy and Switzerland.

Philip acts for clients in two of The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases for 2023 and one for 2024. His work has involved some of the most high-value, complex and long-running litigation in the Commercial Court in recent years. He is recommended for commercial dispute resolution in Chambers and Partners and in The Legal 500.

• Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process and Industrial Developments Ltd. Philip acted for Nigeria in this high-profile Commercial Court action to set aside  an arbitral award worth over US$11 billion.  Robin Knowles J gave judgment for Nigeria in October 2023 ([2023] EWHC 2638 (Comm)), finding that the award was tainted by a massive fraud, involving bribes paid to government officials to secure the underlying contract, the secret obtaining and use by P&ID of Nigeria’s confidential internal legal documents during the arbitration and perjury in the arbitration. This followed Sir Ross Cranston having granted in September 2023 an unprecedented extension of time for Nigeria to bring its challenge under s.70(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 and relief from sanctions – [2020] EWHC 2379 (Comm).  The fraud was all the more significant given that the award’s value was more than Nigeria’s health, education and defence budgets and given that it involved serious misconduct in the arbitration by an English qualified barrister and solicitor. In a postscript to his judgment, Robin Knowles J has commented on the potential questions that may arise out of the fraud as to the conduct of arbitration in England and abroad.
• Republic of Mozambique v Credit Suisse, Privinvest & Ors. Ongoing, Commercial Court litigation commenced by Mozambique against Credit Suisse, Privinvest and others alleging bribery and conspiracy in relation to significant naval, fisheries and coastal protection investments in Mozambique, seeking more than US$2.5 billion in compensation. Philip acts for the Privinvest parties. A 12 week trial took place in autumn 2023, in which Philip led on a number of aspects of the case, including on performance of the underlying contracts. Numerous judgments have been made in the proceedings including on significant issues of disclosure (e.g. [2022] EWHC 3054 (Comm), [2023] EWHC 514 (Comm), [2023] EWHC 91 (Comm), [2023] EWHC 1148 (Comm)) and, relatedly, on strike out for failure by Mozambique to give proper disclosure ([2023] EWHC 1650 (Comm)).
• Czech Republic v Diag Human SE and Josef Stava. Commercial Court litigation in which the Czech Republic seeks to overturn a 2022 BIT award against it in the sum of c.US$730 million. Philip successfully represented Diag Human and Mr Stava in the BIT arbitration, in which it was held that the Czech Republic had breached its Treaty obligations to them. He continues to act for them now, as defendants to the Czech Republic’s challenge. This is a long-running dispute relating to wrongdoing by the Czech Health Minister in the early 1990s and involving allegations that the Czech State interfered with and corrupted an arbitral review process in an underlying commercial arbitration in the Czech Republic prior to the BIT arbitration. A 2-week Commercial Court hearing took place in January-February 2024 before Foxton J. It was concerned primarily with the s.68 challenge and whether any of the s.67 challenge is precluded by s.73 of the Act. Another 2-week trial is set down for June 2024.
• Diag Human SE v Czech Republic PCA Case 2018-20. US$2.4 billion investment treaty claim against Czech Republic arising out of difficulties in enforcing a 2008 Czech commercial arbitration award, including in England [2014] EWHC 1639 (Comm), Austria and the Netherlands (in contrast to successful enforcement in Luxembourg and Belgium). Long-running dispute relating to wrongdoing by the Czech Health Minister in the early 1990s and involving allegations that the Czech State interfered with and corrupted the arbitral review process.
• Durnont v Fazita and ors. International derivative action against alleged fraudsters in Poland. Philip acts for Durnont in this claim for c.€100 million concerning wrongdoing in relation to a Polish property investment fund. Part 19 permission to continue was obtained in May 2023 – [2023] EWHC 1294 (Ch). One aspect of that is going to the Court of Appeal in March 2024.
• LCIA arbitration (2022). Dispute between former partners in a major Russian bank involving allegations of fraud and duress arising out of a call on loan notes worth US$90 million. The dispute centred on whether the expropriation of the bank by the Russian state had been brought about by the independent acts of the Russian financial regulator (on the instructions of President Putin), in particular following financial constraints imposed following the Russian occupation of Crimea, or by a business competitor prompting those steps.  An award favourable to Philip’s clients was rendered in early 2023.
• Carpatsky Petroleum Co v PJSC Ukrnafta [2020] EWHC 769 (Comm), [2018] EWHC 2516 (Comm): action to enforce Stockholm arbitration award in England for US$148 million. Preliminary issue of whether a fraud case could be pleaded to resist enforcement, applying the Westacre. Substantive issues included as to law applicable to arbitration agreement and issue estoppel in proceedings to enforce arbitral awards as a result of positions taken in earlier supervisory jurisdiction challenge proceedings and other enforcement proceedings.
• John Paylor and others v Junie Conrad Omari Bowers and others [2018] EWHC 826 (Ch): acted for insolvency practitioners in fraud action against bankrupts/directors of insolvent companies tracing proceeds of fraud held in complex offshore structures. Freezing injunctions and search orders. Issue concerning conduct of search order and if, and how, documents held by supervising solicitor should be produced to claimants.
• IPM Energy Trading Ltd v Carillion Energy Services Ltd (Commercial Court, 2017) [2017] EWHC 1399 (Comm) – dispute concerning the implementation of the UK government CESP scheme imposing carbon offset obligations on power generators. Issues as to whether exclusion clause covering liability for OFGEM fines also extended to expenses incurred in mitigation of fines and as to meaning of “deliberate refusal” to perform.
• Grove Park Properties Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2018] EWHC 3618 (Comm) and [2018] EWHC 3521 (Comm) – ongoing: claim concerning alleged fraud and forgery by the bank in respect of financing transaction documents, including swap agreement under the ISDA Master Agreement.
• Qingdao Huiquan Shipping Co v Shanghai Dong He Xin Industry Group Co Ltd [2018] EWHC 3009 (Comm): anti-suit injunction to restrain foreign proceedings, obtained despite considerable elapse of time.
• Galas v McAleer [2018] EWHC 2366 (QB): letter of request from Californian court, issues as to whether request satisfied test for specificity and test for relevance on examination.
• Sovarex v Markov (Commercial Court, 2016) – claim for deceit in relation to creditworthiness of commodities buyer and related interim freezing relief against buyer and its controlling shareholder.
• Arbor Inc v Exclusive SAS (Commercial Court, 2016) – claim by US and UK anti-malware software (DDOS) suppliers against French distributor arising out of termination of distribution agreement, raising issues under Commercial Agents Regulations, in competition law and as regards privity of contract (in relation to liability of French distributor for sums claimed against affiliates).
• Laird Resources LLP v Aumm Holdings Ltd & ors (Commercial Court, 2015) – claims against defendants in offshore corporate structure in disputes relating to UK property portfolio, with main issue being as to principles of construction of contracts and as regards meaning of “assets” in standard Commercial Court freezing injunction wording and “control” for purposes of enforcement. Post-judgment freezing injunction and disclosure orders against respondents in complex web of interconnected trusts (reported at [2015] EWHC 2615 (Comm)). Application for appointment of receivers by way of equitable execution for enforcement against offshore discretionary trust assets, raising issues as to role of “Protector” of trusts.
• Bonhams 1793 Ltd v Lawson, Zanotti & Ors (Commercial Court, 2015) – highly publicised dispute concerning the sale of a Ferrari, one of only 6 of its kind, with related arbitration in Florida and disputes over the application of New York law.
• Applications for security, for the hearing of a preliminary issue and on jurisdiction.
• LCIA Arbitration (2014) – acting for former chairman of a Ukrainian Bank, defending a US$75 million claim brought by the bank, with related High Court proceedings concerning freezing and disclosure injunctions in support of the arbitration and contempt proceedings for alleged breach of injunctions (see VAB Bank v Maksimov [2013] EWHC 422 (Comm), [2013] EWHC 3203 (Comm), [2014] EWHC 1958 (QB) and [2014] EWHC 3771 (Comm)). The dispute centred on the “best endeavours” term and on the effect of conditions precedent.
• LCIA Arbitration (2014-15) – US$80 million claims by offshore entity in two arbitrations against Russian state-owned energy company and its subsidiary, arising out of sale and purchase of Russian oil exploration company. Issues of fraud, the impact of the EU and US sanctions regime on Russian entities (including as to how they should be given security for costs) and joinder and consolidation under the LCIA Rules 1998 and 2014.
• ICC Arbitration (2014) – dispute involving South-American state-owned entity’s US$1 billion claim against contractors. Principal issues included: the rights of a party to damages under a contract or at common law depending upon manner of termination; and ability to join a guarantor to arbitral proceedings.
• Diag Human SE v Czech Republic (Commercial Court, 2013-14) – arbitration award enforcement action in English Commercial Court against sovereign state. Principal dispute concerned the reliance on issue estoppel as a means of preventing enforcement under the New York Convention (Reported at [2014] EWHC 1639 (Comm)). Issues also as to whether security for costs is available to an award debtor in an enforcement action (reported at [2013] EWHC 3190 (Comm)) and whether sums paid by the state into a bank account for the purposes of coupon payments to bondholders could be the subject of a third party debt order.
• LCIA Arbitration (2013) – dispute concerning construction of licence agreement and cutting-edge research agreement between bio-tech research company and global pharmaceutical company, in particular as to the restrictions placed on the former in relation to its genetic engineering of applications (led by Steven Gee KC).
• Chinacast Education Corp v Chan & ors [2013] HKCFI 1855 – dispute concerning one of China’s largest education companies and use of offshore companies to avoid RMB convertibility restrictions. Issues include the extent of the Chabrajurisdiction in injunction proceedings.
• Wu v Hillard, Wade And Others (Chancery Division 2013) – appeal by Chinese directors of English company in liquidation. Dispute over existence, extent and application in practice of court’s inherent jurisdiction to order security for costs (reported at [2013] EWHC (Ch) LTL 26/11/2013).
• A v B and ors (Commercial Court, 2011) [2011] EWHC 2905 (Comm) unreported – Application for freezing injunction against London bank over sovereign bond payments by state for payment of bondholder coupons. Issues as to court jurisdiction to grant freezing injunction against third party under Chabra jurisdiction where possible sovereign immunity of primary respondent, as to nature of bond payments and whether constitute flawed assets and as to impact of freezing orders of this nature on sovereign debt market.

Philip has a busy commodities practice, dealing with issues involving the trading, financing, storage and care for and delivery of commodities. His recent work has included acting for a London finance house in a fraud and conversion dispute with a Chilean agent purchasing iron slag on its behalf for on-sale to China, acting for Chinese purchasers of US$180 million worth of iron ore from a West African mine, acting for a UK trading house involved in a quality dispute over Colombian coking coal delivered to Poland and acting for a collateral manager for European banks of rice in Liberia, 1.5 million bags of which was stolen during the recent Ebola outbreak.

• A v B (London arbitration) (ongoing). Carousel fraud involving an international ring of rogue metals traders selling falsely described shipments out of SE Asia. Philip acts for a defrauded party, which has suffered significant losses, amounting to millions of dollars.
• ICC arbitration Zurich (2017-2018): US$138 million dispute arising out of barter arrangements between foreign investor and Venezuelan state-owned mining company. Issues as to jurisdiction, fraud and corruption, application of mandatory laws, ability of state to rely on its own national law to negate arbitration agreement. Related LMAA arbitrations in London and arbitrations in New York.
• Carpatsky Petroleum Co v PJSC Ukrnafta [20200 EWHC 769 (Comm), [2018] EWHC 2516 (Comm): action to enforce Stockholm arbitration award in England for US$148 million arising out of joint activity agreement to explore and develop Ukrainian gas field. Issue of whether a fraud case could be pleaded to resist enforcement, applying Westacre. Issue also of impact on quantum but-for scenario of Ukrainian law to impose a price cap on sale of gas in domestic market.
• A v B (UNCITRAL arbitration 2019): claim by Kazakh oil well engineering company against major Western oil company arising out of tender process in relation to drilling operations in Western Kazakhstan.
• Sovarex v Markov (Commercial Court, 2016) – claim for deceit in relation to creditworthiness of commodities buyer and associated interim freezing relief against buyer and its controlling shareholder.
• GPT v E.ON (Commercial Court, 2016) – claims in contract and unjust enrichment in relation to delivery of cargo of wood pellets for power generation, arising out of conflicting accounts as to the contract and bills of lading under which the cargo was said to have been delivered.
• BCV & ors v DCL (Commercial Court, 2016, and related ICC arbitrations) – claims against collateral asset manager by 5 banks arising out of the disappearance from a warehouse in Monrovia, Liberia, of 1.5 million bags of rice during the Ebola outbreak in 2014-2015 and the banks’ resulting loss of collateral.
• LMAA Arbitration (2016) – claim by owner of multiple vessels chartered to South American state-owned entity for carriage of iron ore and related products in respect of outstanding sums due by way of hire, with value to be paid in commodities. Issues as to jurisdiction, illegality under foreign law and construction of contracts and as to the manner of payment by way of commodity supply.
• LCIA Arbitrations (2015-2016) – related LCIA claims against a Russian mining company and, under a guarantee, against its parent, concerning the supply of coal from Siberia and the threatened insolvency of a related entity.
• SCC Arbitration (2010-2014) – US$450m joint venture dispute between US and Ukrainian partners arising out of development of Ukrainian gas fields, with the principal issue being as to the valuation of the fields in circumstances where the Ukrainian government had imposed a cap on the sale price for gas (led by Clive Freedman KC).
• UNCITRAL Rules Arbitration (2014) – acting for Belgian trading company in dispute with Colombian coking coal distributor over force majeure allegations arising out of La Niña disruption to Colombian distribution in 2011.
• LMAA arbitration (2011) – acting for a state-owned Chinese chemical company in a LMAA dispute with an Indian commodities supplier.
• Re Namco (Commercial Court, 2003) – insolvency dispute concerning diamond mining vessel off South Africa (reported at [2003] EWHC 989 (Ch)).

Philip’s practice has a particular focus on energy and natural resources. Recent years have seen him involved in a number of complex and very high-value energy and natural resources disputes both in court and in arbitration. Issues raised cover a broad range of contractual, tortious, civil fraud, jurisdiction, conflicts of laws and procedural matters.

• Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process and Industrial Developments Ltd. Philip acted for Nigeria in this high-profile Commercial Court action to set aside  an arbitral award worth over US$11 billion.  Robin Knowles J gave judgment for Nigeria in October 2023 ([2023] EWHC 2638 (Comm)), finding that the award was tainted by a massive fraud, involving bribes paid to government officials to secure the underlying contract, the secret obtaining and use by P&ID of Nigeria’s confidential internal legal documents during the arbitration and perjury in the arbitration. This followed Sir Ross Cranston having granted in September 2023 an unprecedented extension of time for Nigeria to bring its challenge under s.70(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 and relief from sanctions – [2020] EWHC 2379 (Comm).  The fraud was all the more significant given that the award’s value was more than Nigeria’s health, education and defence budgets and given that it involved serious misconduct in the arbitration by an English qualified barrister and solicitor. In a postscript to his judgment, Robin Knowles J has commented on the potential questions that may arise out of the fraud as to the conduct of arbitration in England and abroad. At trial, Philip led on the cross-examination of experts on gas processing, with particular focus on oil and gas well pressure and volume issues, transport of output and on construction and operation of a gas processing plant.
• UNCITRAL Rules arbitration (2022). Claim for US$160 million against a West African state-owned entity in relation to a planned electricity power project. Philip successfully represented the investor against the West African state-owned entity, which was found to have breached its obligations to the investor in relation to construction and operation of a combined oil/gas electricity plant.
• ICC arbitration Zurich (2017-2018): US$138 million dispute arising out of barter arrangements between foreign investor and Venezuelan state-owned mining company. Issues as to jurisdiction, fraud and corruption, application of mandatory laws, ability of state to rely on its own national law to negate arbitration agreement. Related LMAA arbitrations in London and arbitrations in New York.
• IPM Energy Trading Ltd v Carillion Energy Services Ltd (Commercial Court, 2017) [2017] EWHC 1399 (Comm) – dispute concerning the implementation of the UK government CESP scheme imposing carbon offset obligations on power generators. Issues as to whether exclusion clause covering liability for OFGEM fines also extended to expenses incurred in mitigation of fines and as to meaning of “deliberate refusal” to perform.
• Carpatsky Petroleum Co v PJSC Ukrnafta [2020] EWHC 769 (Comm), [2018] EWHC 2516 (Comm): action to enforce Stockholm arbitration award in England for US$148 million arising out of joint activity agreement to explore and develop Ukrainian gas field. Issue of whether a fraud case could be pleaded to resist enforcement, applying Westacre. Issue also of impact on quantum but-for scenario of Ukrainian law to impose a price cap on sale of gas in domestic market.
• A v B (UNCITRAL arbitration 2019): claim by Kazakh oil well engineering company against major Western oil company arising out of tender process in relation to drilling operations in Western Kazakhstan.
• GPT v E.ON (Commercial Court, ongoing) – claims in contract and unjust enrichment in relation to delivery of cargo of wood pellets for power generation, arising out of conflicting accounts as to the contract and bills of lading under which the cargo was said to have been delivered.
• LCIA Arbitrations (2015-2016) – related LCIA claims against a Russian mining company and, under a guarantee, against its parent, concerning the supply of coal from Siberia and the threatened insolvency of a related entity.
• Ad hoc Arbitration (2015) – dispute involving Japanese nuclear industry supplier concerning rights upon termination of contract following the Tohoku 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Issues as to the English law approach to the rights of contracting parties upon termination and whether contractual provisions exclude rights to damages under the general law that would otherwise exist (following a number of significant judgments in recent years, including The Astra, Newland Shipping, Spar Shipping and others).
• Ad hoc Arbitration (2015) – Houston, Texas arbitration concerning the sale and purchase of an oil rig off the coast of Nigeria raising issues of construction of contractual provisions as to condition precedent and material adverse changes.
• SCC Arbitration (2010-2014) – US$450 million joint venture dispute between US and Ukrainian partners arising out of the development of Ukrainian gas fields, with the principal issue being as to the valuation of the fields in circumstances where the Ukrainian government had imposed a cap on the sale price for gas.
• Aynak Copper Project, Afghanistan (2012) – advising Global Witness pro bono in their consultation with the Afghan Government over the investment by a Chinese state-owned company into the Aynak Copper Project. This is the largest foreign investment in Afghanistan to date and raises issues of contract structure and of sovereign immunity of Chinese stateowned entities.
• Re Namco (Commercial Court, 2003) – insolvency dispute concerning diamond mining vessel off South Africa (reported at [2003] EWHC 989 (Ch)).

Philip has a very significant arbitration practice. His work has involved very high value claims over the past few years, including a US$2.5 billion claim against the Czech State which ended in a favourable award for Philip’s clients. His  arbitration work has been particularly focused on high value emerging markets disputes and on disputes involving states and state-owned entities.

Philip has considerable expertise in arbitration hearings, covering both applications and final hearings. In addition, Philip has expertise in the enforcement of arbitral awards, including against states.

Philip also accepts appointments as and has experience as an arbitrator, including as an ICC arbitrator.

• Diag Human SE v Czech Republic PCA Case 2018-20 –: US$2.4 billion investment treaty claim against Czech Republic arising out of difficulties in enforcing a 2008 Czech commercial arbitration award, including in England [2014] EWHC 1639 (Comm), Austria and the Netherlands (in contrast to successful enforcement in Luxembourg and Belgium). Long-running dispute relating to wrongdoing by the Czech Health Minister in the early 1990s and involving extraordinary interference with and corruption of an arbitral review process by the Czech State.  An award was rendered in favour of Philip’s clients in May 2022. It is now being challenged by the Czech State in the Commercial Court.
• A v B (London arbitration) (ongoing). Carousel fraud involving an international ring of rogue metals traders selling falsely described shipments out of SE Asia. Philip acts for a defrauded party, which has suffered significant losses, amounting to millions of dollars.
• UNCITRAL Rules arbitration (2022). Claim for US$160 million against a West African state-owned entity in relation to a planned electricity power project. Philip successfully represented the investor against the West African state-owned entity, which was found to have breached its obligations to the investor in relation to construction and operation of a combined oil/gas electricity plant.
• LCIA arbitration (2022). Dispute between former partners in a major Russian bank involving allegations of fraud and duress arising out of a call on loan notes worth US$90 million. The dispute centred on whether the expropriation of the bank by the Russian state had been brought about by the independent acts of the Russian financial regulator (on the instructions of President Putin), in particular following financial constraints imposed following the Russian occupation of Crimea, or by a business competitor prompting those steps.  An award favourable to Philip’s clients was rendered in early 2023.
• A v B (UNCITRAL arbitration 2019): claim by Kazakh oil well engineering company against major Western oil company arising out of tender process in relation to drilling operations in Western Kazakhstan.
• LCIA Arbitration (2016) – claim by Russian shareholder in Moscow property joint venture with state-owned bank. Issues concerning improper related party transactions, diversion of bank investment funds, corruption and the jurisdiction of tribunal to consider certain fraud allegations.
• LCIA Arbitrations (2015-2016) – related LCIA claims against a Russian mining company and, under a guarantee, against its parent, concerning the supply of coal from Siberia and the threatened insolvency of a related entity.
• LCIA Arbitration (2014-15) – US$80 million claims by offshore entity in two arbitrations against Russian state-owned energy company and its subsidiary, arising out of sale and purchase of Russian oil exploration company. Issues of fraud, the impact of the EU and US sanctions regime on Russian entities (including as to how they should be given security for costs) and joinder and consolidation under the LCIA Rules 1998 and 2014.
• ICC Arbitration (2014) – dispute involving South-American state-owned entity’s US$1 billion claim against contractors. Principal issues included: the rights of a party to damages under a contract or at common law depending upon manner of termination; and ability to join a guarantor to arbitral proceedings.
• Diag Human SE v Czech Republic [2014] EWHC 1639 (Comm) – arbitration award enforcement action in English Commercial Court against sovereign state. Principal dispute concerned the reliance on issue estoppel as a means of preventing enforcement under the New York Convention.
• UNCITRAL Rules Arbitration (2014) – acting for Belgian trading company in dispute with Colombian coking coal distributor over force majeure allegations arising out of La Niña disruption to Colombian distribution in 2011.
• Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd v European Container KS [2013] EWHC 3581 (Comm) – clarification of the court’s jurisdiction under section 44(3) Arbitration Act 1996 to grant interim injunctive relief in support of arbitration and of the extent to which contractual rights come within meaning of “assets” under section 44(3) following Cetelem v Roust.
• Diag Human SE v Czech Republic [2013] EWHC 3190 (Comm) – dispute over entitlement of award debtor to obtain order for security for costs against award creditor in arbitration award enforcement proceedings, whether permitted under New York Convention and who is the “claimant” for the purposes of the CPR security for costs regime.
• Ad hoc London Arbitration (2014) – high net worth family dispute between New York-based family members concerning high value, well-known works of art (in particular by Monet).
• LCIA Arbitration (2013) – US$2 billion LCIA dispute concerning the Russian and Ukrainian mining and metals industry involving questions of fraud, reflective loss and entitlement to injunctive relief (led by Joe Smouha KC).
• SCC Arbitration (2010-2014) – US$450m joint venture dispute between US and Ukrainian partners arising out of the development of Ukrainian gas fields, with the principal issue being as to the valuation of the fields in circumstances where the Ukrainian government had imposed a cap on the sale price for gas (led by Clive Freedman KC).
• ICC Arbitration (2013) – dispute arising out of fraudulent management of Caribbean investment trust (Bahamian law) in Italy and Switzerland.
• LCIA Arbitration (2013) – dispute concerning construction of licence agreement and cutting-edge research agreement between bio-tech research company and global pharmaceutical company, in particular as to the restrictions placed on the former in relation to its genetic engineering of applications (led by Steven Gee KC).
• Latvian Shipping Co v Russian People’s Insurance Co OJSC (“The Ojars Vacietis”) [2012] EWHC 1412 (Comm) (Field J) – section 68 and section 69 appeals arising out of LMAA award, raising issues as to the court’s approach to section 68 challenges and as to the jurisdiction of the court to address challenges to its own decision granting permission to appeal on a point of law.
• LMAA arbitration (2011) – insurance claim in respect of grounding of bulk carrier off Eastern USA raising issues as to scope of marine insurance policies and expert evidence as to damage caused by grounding.
• LMAA arbitration (2011) – acting for a state-owned Chinese chemical company in a LMAA dispute with an Indian commodities supplier.
• LCIA Arbitration (2010) – LCIA dispute arising out of non-performance of an underlying loan contract for a Russian textile company based in Hong Kong and of the loan guarantee. Issues included the validity of a guarantee when the underlying contract has been amended and the power of an arbitrator to order a party to put up security for the claim in LCIA arbitration.
• LMAA arbitrations (2008-2011) – acting for Chinese shipyard in 4 major LMAA arbitration disputes with German buyers of vessels regarding delayed delivery following Typhoon Morakot in 2009.
• Alphapoint v Rotem Amfert Negev Ltd (“Agios Dimitrios”) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 23 – Commercial Court application under ss.68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act.

Philip has expertise in a wide-range of private international law work – in jurisdiction and conflict of laws disputes. He is regularly involved in disputes over the jurisdiction of the English court to consider a claim and over the jurisdiction of English arbitral tribunals. He is also instructed as an expert in foreign proceedings on English jurisdictional matters. Philip now speaks regularly on the impact of Brexit on the English jurisdictional regime.

• M-JWK v Polish Real Estate Investment (Commercial Court, 2016) – claim by Polish commercial property group subsidiary against Cypriot parent in relation to payments of debts to Raiffeisen Bank under convertible bonds. The group’s assets were held in a closed-end investment fund managed by a fund manager regulated under by the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (the equivalent of the UK FCA). Issues as to: fraud and bad faith relevant to the founding of English court’s jurisdiction; compliance by the fund manager with its obligations under Polish law; whether, under Polish law, a third party payer of a debt to a bank is entitled to be subrogated to the bank’s rights as lender; validity of board resolutions under Cypriot law.
• Sovarex v Markov (Commercial Court, 2016) – claim for deceit in relation to creditworthiness of commodities buyer and associated interim freezing relief against buyer and its controlling shareholder. Issue as to jurisdiction of court to grant relief over non-party to arbitration following the clarification of the jurisdiction by Males J in Cruz City.
• LCIA Arbitration (2016) – claim by Russian shareholder in Moscow property joint venture with state-owned bank. Issues concerning improper related party transactions, diversion of bank investment funds, corruption and the jurisdiction of tribunal to consider certain fraud allegations.
• ICC Arbitration (2015) – complex multi-jurisdiction dispute involving English entity financing sale and purchase transactions between Chilean commodities traders and Chinese buyers, with disputes in ICC, HKIAC and Beijing Arbitration Commission. Issues include as to jurisdiction of English court in support of London arbitration to freeze proceeds of deceit in Singapore.
• LCIA Arbitration (2016) – claim by Russian shareholder in Moscow property joint venture with state-owned bank. Issues concerning improper related party transactions, corruption and the jurisdiction of tribunal to consider certain fraud allegations.
• Bonhams 1793 Ltd v Lawson, Zanotti & Ors (Commercial Court, 2015) – highly publicised dispute concerning the sale of a Ferrari, one of only 6 of its kind, with related arbitration in Florida and disputes over the application of New York law.
• Applications for security, for the hearing of a preliminary issue and on jurisdiction.
• Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd v European Container KS [2013] EWHC 3581 (Comm) – clarification of the court’s jurisdiction under section 44(3) Arbitration Act 1996 to grant interim injunctive relief in support of arbitration and of the extent to which contractual rights come within meaning of “assets” under section 44(3) following Cetelem v Roust (reported at [2013] EWHC 3581 (Comm) (Males J)).
• Chinacast Education Corp v Chan & ors [2013] HKCFI 1855 – dispute concerning one of China’s largest education companies and use of offshore companies to avoid RMB convertibility restrictions. Issues include the extent of the Chabra jurisdiction in injunction proceedings.

Philip is recommended as a leading junior in shipping disputes. He is described in the shipping directories as “simply excellent” (The Legal 500 2016). “He is very hard-working; he rolls up his sleeves, gets on with things and does a very good job” (Chambers and Partners UK Bar 2016).

Philip’s shipping practice covers all aspects of dry shipping disputes, including cargo, charterparty, ship finance, and sale and purchase matters. He also has considerable experience of shipbuilding disputes, including those involving Chinese yards following the financial crisis and, more recently, a US$1 billion dispute involving multiple Panamax vessels being built in South American yards.

• Republic of Mozambique v Credit Suisse, Privinvest & Ors. Ongoing, Commercial Court litigation commenced by Mozambique against Credit Suisse, Privinvest and others alleging bribery and conspiracy in relation to significant naval, fisheries and coastal protection investments in Mozambique, seeking more than US$2.5 billion in compensation. Philip acts for the Privinvest parties. A 12 week trial took place in autumn 2023, in which Philip led on a number of aspects of the case, including on performance of the underlying contracts. Numerous judgments have been made in the proceedings including on significant issues of disclosure (e.g. [2022] EWHC 3054 (Comm), [2023] EWHC 514 (Comm), [2023] EWHC 91 (Comm), [2023] EWHC 1148 (Comm)) and, relatedly, on strike out for failure by Mozambique to give proper disclosure ([2023] EWHC 1650 (Comm)).
• Philip’s role at trial included a particular focus on cross-examination of experts on the fleet of naval and fishing vessels delivered to Mozambique and on the capabilities of the shipbuilding industry installed.
• A v B (London arbitration) (ongoing). Carousel fraud involving an international ring of rogue metals traders selling falsely described shipments out of SE Asia. Philip acts for a defrauded party, which has suffered significant losses, amounting to millions of dollars.
• LMAA arbitrations (2017-2018): US$138 million dispute arising out of barter arrangements between foreign investor and Venezuelan state-owned mining company, including as to shipping on the Orinoco river. Issues as to jurisdiction, fraud and corruption, application of mandatory laws, ability of state to rely on its own national law to negate arbitration agreement. Related ICC arbitration in Zurich and arbitrations in New York.
• Qingdao Huiquan Shipping Co v Shanghai Dong He Xin Industry Group Co Ltd [2018] EWHC 3009 (Comm): anti-suit injunction to restrain foreign proceedings, obtained despite considerable elapse of time.
• LMAA Arbitration (2016) – claim by owner of multiple vessels chartered to South American state-owned entity for carriage of iron ore and related products in respect of outstanding sums due by way of hire, with value to be paid in commodities. Issues as to jurisdiction of LMAA tribunal in circumstances of subsequent contracts subject to foreign court jurisdiction, illegality under foreign law and construction of contracts.
• LMAA Arbitration (2016) – claim by South Korean shipyard against buyer under shipbuilding contract in circumstances where payments ceased at early stage of construction, but where buyer alleged sale of vessel by shipyard to third party and claimed set-off for the sale value.
• GPT v E.ON (Commercial Court, ongoing) – claims in contract and unjust enrichment in relation to delivery of cargo of wood pellets for power generation, arising out of conflicting accounts as to the contract and bills of lading under which the cargo was said to have been delivered.
• ICC Arbitration (2014) – dispute involving South-American state-owned entity’s US$1 billion claim against shipbuilders. Principal issues included: the rights of a party to damages under a contract or at common law depending upon manner of termination; and ability to join a guarantor to arbitral proceedings.
• Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd v European Container KS (Commercial Court 2013) – clarification of the court’s jurisdiction under section 44(3) Arbitration Act 1996 to grant interim injunctive relief in support of arbitration and of the extent to which contractual rights come within meaning of “assets” under section 44(3) following Cetelem v Roust(Reported at [2013] EWHC 3581 (Comm) (Males J)).
• Latvian Shipping Co v Russian People’s Insurance Co OJSC (“The Ojars Vacietis”) (Commercial Court 2012) – section 68 and section 69 appeals arising out of LMAA award, raising issues as to the court’s approach to section 68 challenges and as to the jurisdiction of the court to address challenges to its own decision granting permission to appeal on a point of law (reported at [2012] EWHC 1412 (Comm) (Field J)).
• LMAA arbitration (2012) – dispute as to liability for commission in a US$63 million shipbuilding contract involving the London/Hong Kong shipbroker, Korean buyers and a Shanghai shipyard.
• HKIAC arbitration (2011) – dispute concerning alleged frustration in relation to Government Port Authority restrictions at Indian port and raising issues as to the calculation of damages and as to the nature of a State authority’s pronouncements on port entry restrictions.
• LMAA arbitration (2011) – proceedings concerning fire in hold of vessel off Shanghai, raising procedural issues over meaning of the LMAA procedural provisions for interim awards as well as substantive issues regarding apportionment of responsibility between Owners and Charterers as regards deck welding and fire on board.
• A v B (Commercial Court 2010) – dispute arising out of breached ship financing contract and subsequent litigation pursuing the debt in the Singapore High Court and in Luxembourg. Judgment successfully obtained following Unless Orders in relation to provision of information regarding Luxembourg banking arrangements.
• LMAA arbitrations (2008-2011) – acting for Chinese shipyard in four major LMAA arbitration disputes with German buyers of vessels regarding delayed delivery following Typhoon Morakot in 2009.
• Parrott v Parkin (Commercial Court 2007) – admiralty dispute concerning ownership of yacht, involving questions of constructive trust in circumstances of joint contributions to purchase sum (see [2007] EWHC 210 (Admlty) (Aikens J)).
• Triton Navigation Ltd v Vitol SA (“The Nikmary”) (Court of Appeal 2004) – dispute concerning the obligation of a charterer to deliver cargo (led by Vasanti Selvaratnam KC), reported at [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 55 (CA), [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 151 (Commercial Court).

Philip has seen an increasing amount of public international law work in recent years, including the very high-profile BIT dispute with the Czech Republic.

• Diag Human SE v Czech Republic PCA Case 2018-20: US$2.4 billion investment treaty claim against Czech Republic arising out of difficulties in enforcing a 2008 Czech commercial arbitration award, including in England [2014] EWHC 1639 (Comm), Austria and the Netherlands (in contrast to successful enforcement in Luxembourg and Belgium). Long-running dispute relating to wrongdoing by the Czech Health Minister in the early 1990s and involving extraordinary interference with and corruption of an arbitral review process by the Czech State.  An award was rendered in favour of Philip’s clients in May 2022. It is now being challenged by the Czech State in the Commercial Court.  The award found serious breaches of the Czech Republic’s FET obligations to the claimants under the Czechoslovak-Swiss Treaty. Issues arising included that of state succession (Czech Republic to Czechoslovakia, res judicata and issue preclusion in international law arising out of domestic decisions and non-recognition on the international plane of domestic decisions (court or arbitration) as a consequence of that decision being obtained by way of a treaty breach by the state.
• UNCITRAL Rules arbitration (2022). Claim for US$160 million against a West African state-owned entity in relation to a planned electricity power project. Philip successfully represented the investor against the West African state-owned entity, which was found to have breached its obligations to the investor in relation to construction and operation of a combined oil/gas electricity plant.
• PL Holdings v Poland (Commercial Court): acting on behalf of PL Holdings in its action to enforce in England a BIT award for PLN 653 million (relating to the Benelux-Poland BIT) against Poland, being resisted by Poland in reliance on Slovak Republic v Achmea BV (ECJ case 284/16). Issue as to impact of Brexit on English court application of Achmea.
• Bilateral Investment Treaty arbitration (ongoing) – arbitration and subsequent enforcement action against sovereign state under BIT in relation to allegations of expropriation of investments in banking sector. Issues include as to standing of investor under BIT and as to jurisdiction.
• ICC Arbitration (ongoing) – dispute involving allegations of fraud and corruption in commercial transactions involving state-owned entity. Key issue is as to the right of the state to rely on its own laws to avoid arbitration agreement.
• LCIA Arbitration (2016) – claim by Russian shareholder in Moscow property joint venture with state-owned bank. Issues concerning improper related party transactions, diversion of bank investment funds, corruption and the jurisdiction of tribunal to consider certain fraud allegations.
• LCIA Arbitration (2014-15) – US$80 million claims by offshore entity in two arbitrations against Russian state-owned energy company and its subsidiary, arising out of sale and purchase of Russian oil exploration company. Issues of fraud, the impact of the EU and US sanctions regime on Russian entities (including as to how they should be given security for costs) and joinder and consolidation under the LCIA Rules 1998 and 2014.
• Diag Human SE v Czech Republic (Commercial Court, 2013-14) [2014] EWHC 1639 (Comm), [2013] EWHC 3190 (Comm) – arbitration award enforcement action in English Commercial Court against sovereign state.
• ICC Arbitration (2014) – dispute involving South-American state-owned entity’s US$1 billion claim against contractors.
• A v B and ors (Commercial Court, 2011) [2011] EWHC 2905 (Comm) unreported – application for freezing injunction against London bank over sovereign bond payments by state for payment of bondholder coupons. Issues as to court jurisdiction to grant freezing injunction against third party under Chabra jurisdiction where possible sovereign immunity of primary respondent, as to nature of bond payments and whether constituted flawed assets and as to impact of freezing orders of this nature on sovereign debt market.
• Aynak Copper Project, Afghanistan (2012) – advising Global Witness pro bono in their consultation with the Afghan Government over the investment by a Chinese state-owned company into the Aynak Copper Project. Issues of contract structure and of sovereign immunity of Chinese state-owned entities.