Alistair Schaff QC

Most of his commercial litigation practice involves insurance or reinsurance, shipping or energy disputes addressed more specifically below. For example, he is currently involved in a makor Commercial Court action involving damage to a North Sea platform which is fixed for 12 weeks in October 2018. More generally, and although a personal injury action would not normally be regarded as a ‘commercial dispute,’ Alistair Schaff QC was instructed by the insurance market in what was a landmark ruling on the discount rate in relation to the award of lump sum damages. In Helmot v Simon, the Guernsey Court of Appeal had assessed damages by reference to an unprecedented negative discount rate which had the effect of increasing the multiplier to unprecedented levels. The Privy Council dismissed insurers’ appeal: [2012] UKPC 5. Alistair Schaff QC also acted in a major dispute involving Forward Freight Agreements. An important issue arose as to whether a settlement agreement could be construed in the light of statements allegedly made in the course of ‘without prejudice’ negotiations. The Supreme Court has held that they can be relied on for that purpose, reversing the Court of Appeal who had ruled to the contrary. Oceanbulk v TMT [2010] 3 WLR 1424 is an important authority on the (reduced) scope of the ‘without prejudice’ rule. More historically, in Great North Eastern Railway v Railcare (judgment July 2003), he acted for the successful claimant in its claim for substantial damages for negligence against a supplier of rail parts arising out of a derailment, vindicating a very substantial claim of approximately £3m in the face of an unsuccessful plea of contributory negligence.

Alistair Schaff QC has a pre-eminent insurance and reinsurance practice. In 2009, he was named the Chambers Bar Awards Insurance Silk of the Year. He has been frequently short-listed ever since. In Involnert v Aprilgrange (the “Galatea”) [2015] EWHC 2225 (Comm), a superyacht had been inadvertently insured for 13m euros when it was known by its owners and managers to be worth no more than 8m euros. Leggatt J. upheld the defence of Insurers, represented by Alistair Schaff QC, that the policy had ben avoided for material non-disclosure. In Atlas Navios v Navigators (the “B Atlantic”) [2014] EWHC 4133 (Comm), a vessel had been detained by the Venezuelan authorities prior to sailing after a large consignment of cocaine had been found professionally strapped to the hull. Owners, represented by Alistair Schaff QC, claimed on their war risk policy, for a total loss, and insurers relied on the standard ‘customs infringement’ exclusion. Although Flaux J rejected Owners’ case that there had been wrongful political interference in the judicial process, the claim on the policy was upheld on the grounds that the affixing of the drugs which had caused the detainment amounted to ‘malicious acts’ by persons unknown within the cover and that the standard policy exclusion did not apply where the relevant customs ‘infringement’ was no more than the manifestation of those insured malicious acts. The decision was reversed on appeal: [2106] EWCA Civ 808. Owners are now appealing to the Supreme Court. Alistair Schaff QC has recently been involved in a string of high value and complicated liability insurance or reinsurance claims which are the subject of London arbitration and in which he has acted for insurers or reinsurers. Frequently governed by New York law, and often on the Bermuda Form, these arbitrations have ranged from pharmaceutical liabilities, liabilities for patent infringement, liabilities for personal injury (mesothelioma) and maritime pollution. Standard Life v Ace [2012] EWHC 104 (Comm) involved a claim for £100m on Standard Life’s professional liability policy in respect of a cash injection made to top up the value of the Pension Sterling Fund as a result of falls in value in the Fund. Alistair Schaff QC acted for the insurance market. The litigation raised significant issues of fact and law, including the scope of Mitigation Costs coverage in a professional liability policy and novel and difficult questions of apportionment where mitigation costs are alleged to have been incurred for both insured and uninsured purposes. The Court of Appeal dismissed Insurers’ appeal from the first instance judgment in Standard Life’s favour: [2012] EWCA Civ 1713. Aioi v Heraldglen [2013] EWHC 154 (Comm) involved an appeal from an arbitration award in which the tribunal had held that the losses arising from the attacks on the World Trade Center arose from two events, rather than one event. Alistair Schaff QC acted for the Respondent who successfully upheld the award before Field J. Two recent landmark victories were for the successful reinsurers in the leading case of Wasa v Lexington [2009] UKHL 40 in which the House of Lords considered the nature of a ‘back to back’ facultative reinsurance contract and held that reinsurers were not liable to indemnify the reassured in respect of an underlying liability for property damage which had occurred outside the policy period (see [2010] J.B.L. page 9 for an article which he has written on this case); and for Equitas in Equitas v R&Q [2009] EWHC 2787 (Comm) in which Gross J. upheld the use of actuarial models as a means of kick-starting the LMX spiral in the aftermath of the incorrect aggregation and/or settlement of KAC / BA and Exxon Valdez losses.

Other selected cases:

Orient Express Hotels v Generali [2010] EWHC 1186 (Comm) which involved business interruption claims arising out of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the 'other circumstances' clause and the vexed question of wider 'vicinity' damage (the case was appealed to the Court of Appeal but settled).
Mopani Copper Mines v Millennium [2009] Lloyd’s Rep IR 158, which involved principles of construction concerning the admissibility of deleted words.
Enterprise v Strand [2006] 1 LLR 500 in which he acted for the successful reinsurers in litigation involving the liability section of an energy policy.
CGU v Astrazeneca [2006] Lloyd’s Rep. IR 409 which involved the scope of a ‘back to back’ reinsurance.
GE Re v New Hampshire / Willis [2004] Lloyd’s Rep. IR 404, a film finance case in which he acted for the successful Claimant whose declining of liability on grounds of breach of warranty was upheld.
Super Chem Products Ltd v American Life & General Insurance Co. Ltd [2004] Lloyd’s Rep. IR 446, in which he acted for the successful insurers on an appeal from the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago to the Privy Council in a case which upheld the insurers’ right to rely on timebar and claims co-operation conditions to deny liability for a claim on fire policies.
Jan de Nul v Royale Belge [2002] 1 LLR 583 (CA) in which he acted for the successful insured who claimed under a third party liability policy in respect of liabilities for negligence and nuisance.
Kingscroft v Nissan [1999] Lloyds’ Rep. IR 603, in which he acted for the successful Weavers stamp companies in their claim against their quota share reinsurers in a case which raised important issues as to how underwriting pools operated.
Royal Boskalis Westminster v Mountain [1997] 2 All ER 929 (CA) in which he acted for the successful insurers in a claim involving illegality and duress arising out of the first Gulf War.
The State of the Netherlands v Youell [1998] 1 LLR 236 (paint damage to submarines and issues of sue and labour).
Fraser v Colton [1997] 1 LLR 586 (marine insurance - total loss)

Alistair Schaff QC has a major international arbitration practice. Alistair Schaff QC has acted as Counsel in commercial arbitrations for over 30 years, both in London and overseas, including in the Far East and in the Caribbean. His arbitration practice ranges from disputes involving insurance or shipping to more general commercial disputes. He has recently been actively involved as Counsel in a number of significant New York law and Bermuda Form arbitrations concerning liability insurance involving a wide range of subjects such as pharmaceutical products, patent infringement and maritime pollution, as well as an English law arbitration involving liability for mesothelioma. Alistair Schaff QC regularly sits as a commercial arbitrator in ICC, LCIA and other arbitrations, as sole or party-appointed arbitrator or chair, dealing with a wide range of commercial disputes. Recent cases as arbitrator include disputes involving product liabilities in the United States and elsewhere, banking fraud, gas pricing and pollution, as well as all manner of maritime and (re)insurance disputes.

Selected cases as Counsel:

On behalf of a Middle East government in a major ICC arbitration involving the successful defence of a two billion dollar dispute concerning an oil production sharing agreement with oil majors.
On behalf of political risk underwriters in an LCIA arbitration concerning energy business in Argentina.
On behalf of Far Eastern hotel resorts in Singapore and Bangkok arbitrations arising out of business interruption losses consequent on the tsunami.
On behalf of personal accident reinsurers in a London reinsurance arbitration concerning the personal accident spiral.
On behalf of London market insurers concerning hurricane damage in the Caribbean.
On behalf of liability insurers concerning pharmaceutical liabilities, patent infringement liabilities and maritime pollution liabilities.

He has always enjoyed and is experienced in handling difficult jurisdictional issues. In 2011, he acted in the long-running Masri litigation in connection with difficult issues concerning the scope and application of Articles 27 and 28 of the Brussels 1 Regulation: Masri v CCI [2011] EWHC 1780 (Comm).

Selected cases:

ICSOP v Equitas [2013] EWHC 3713 (Comm)
Equitas v Allstate [2009] Lloyd’s Rep. IR 227.
Metro litigation (see, by way of example, [1999] 2 LLR 724)
The “Tatry” / “Maciej Rataj” [1999] 2 WLR 181, in which he represented cargo interests before the European Court of Justice in the leading case involving Articles 21 and 22 of the Brussels Convention.
Surzur v Koros [1999] 2 LLR 611 (a Court of Appeal decision on conspiracy by unlawful means) arose in a jurisdictional context, as did:
Ocarina v Marcard Stein [1994] 2 LLR 524, the latter then proceeding into a major trial between the bank and its customer which was only concluded on appeal in 1999.

Professional negligence experience involves claims against financial service providers, solicitors, accountants/auditors and insurance brokers. In Clarks v In Focus [2014] EWCA Civ 118, Alistair Schaff QC led on a very important appeal to the Court of Appeal concerning claims for professional negligence against a financial adviser which had been previously been referred to and determined in the complainants’ favour by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). The Court of Appeal reversed Cranston J. and accepted the submission that the application of res judicata and merger principles prevent a complainant from bringing subsequent court proceedings for claims in excess of the maximum amount awardable under the FOS jurisdiction, in circumstances where the complainant has previously accepted a FOS determination for the maximum sum awardable and thereby rendered it final and binding under the Financial Services Act. Alistair Schaff QC is currently acting for liability insurers in relation to a number of mis-selling claims against financial advisers, concerning the question of aggregation. Alistair Schaff QC recently acted for insurance brokers in relation to a large piece of commercial litigation involving the insurance against product liability risks. Alistair Schaff QC recently acted for insurance brokers in a major piece of commercial litigation concerning the alleged loss of over $400m worth of gold in Turkey and the disputed insurance arrangements surrounding that gold. The action involved complex issues of foreign law, coverage, brokers’ duties and fact.

Selected cases:

Environcom v Miles Smith [2011] EWCA Civ 1152. The brokers had been found not liable on grounds of causation. The appeal was dismissed, essentially because the pleadings did not support the case sought to be argued.
Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Ltd v Barbon Insurance Group Ltd [2010] Lloyd's Rep. IR 149. Acting for Nationwide Building Society in a professional negligence action against insurance brokers in a case raising issues as to the extent of brokers’ duties, contributory negligence and causation of loss.

In the shipping context, he has over 30 years of experience in litigation and arbitration, beginning with demurrage disputes and culminating in several of the leading cases on shipping law. He has recently been named the Legal 500 Awards Shipping Silk of the Year for 2015. Alistair Schaff QC recently acted for the successful super-yacht insurers in Involnert v Aprilgrange (the “Galatea”) [2015] EWHC 2225 (Comm), where the policy was avoided for non-disclosure of the fact that the yacht had been over-valued. He is currently acting for the shipowners in Atlas Navios v Navigators (the “B Atlantic”) [2014] EHHC 4133 (Comm); [2016] EWCA Civ 808, in which the Owners claim for a total loss on their war risk insurance in circumstances where cocaine had been found strapped to the vessel’s hull and the Venezuelan authorities had consequently detained the vessel. Alistair Schaff QC acted for shipowners in a major piece of Commercial Court litigation involving microbially induced corrosion and whether such corrosion amounted to or arose from ‘perils of the seas’ or ordinary wear and tear or poor maintenance. Alistair Schaff QC acted for ship purchasers in a Singapore arbitration concerning alleged illegality in the form of alleged non-compliance with IACS shipbuilding regulations. Alistair Schaff QC acted for insurers in a large Commercial Court action involving the grounding and breaking up of a vessel in the Middle East.

Selected cases:
MacWilliam v Mediterranean Shipping Company (The “Rafaella S”) - He successfully represented the cargo claimants in in what is now the leading case on the status of ‘straight’ bills of lading made out to a named consignee without the addition of the words ‘to order.’ Overturning the first instance judge (who, in turn, had upheld the decision of the arbitrators), the Court of Appeal held in [2004] QB 702 that ‘straight’ bills of lading are nonetheless ‘bills of lading’ for the purposes of the Hague-Visby Rules. The House of Lords upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision: [2005] 2 AC 423.
Carewins v Bright Fortune (FACV no 13 of 2008) - He has recently successfully represented the cargo claimants before the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong in a decision which not only reaffirms the presentation rule for ‘straight’ bills of lading but holds that an exceptions clause which excludes liability for the consequences of ‘misdelivery’ is not to be construed as protecting the carrier for breaching the presentation rule.
Effort Shipping v Linden [1998] AC 605 - In this shipping case which went to the House of Lords, he acted for the successful shipowners in what is the leading case on dangerous cargoes.

Year of Call:	1983
Year of Silk:	1999
Email:	aschaff@7kbw.co.uk

+44 (0)20 7910 8300

About 7KBW

7KBW Expertise

Arbitrators/Mediators

Pupillage at 7KBW

"He's simply a class act. Hugely bright, hugely articulate and a real pleasure to work with"

Chambers UK 2017

Practice Profile