Benjamin Parker

Commercial disputes of all varieties lie at the heart of Benjamin Parker’s expertise and practice at the Bar. He is particularly experienced at dealing with multi-jurisdictional disputes, and in advising on issues relating to the “conflict of laws”. In recent years he has also had much experience of obtaining urgent relief from the courts, including anti-suit injunctions and freezing injunctions. He is well-versed in bringing committal proceedings for contempt of court.

• Supreme Court case of Manchester Building Society v. Grant Thornton [2021] UKSC 20, [2021] 3 WLR 81: leading case on the SAAMCO “scope of duty” principle in professional negligence.
• Representing the defendants in SBM v. Zurich Insurance, the largest insurance claim before the Commercial Court. The case, which settled in autumn 2018, concerned the alleged total loss of an oil platform in the North Sea and its abandonment because of safety fears.
• That litigation included SBM v. Aspen [2018] EWHC 1763 (Comm), an important decision of the Commercial Court on the ability of a party to claw back privileged documents inadvertently disclosed (CPR 31.20) and on the scope of litigation privilege and legal advice privilege.
• Representing US energy company in long-running Commercial Court dispute with Nigerian company, arising out of the breakdown of the parties’ commercial relationship. Successful applications for urgent injunctive relief, and to commit directors for contempt of court.
• Advising on the merits of an appeal to the Privy Council (from an appellate court in the Caribbean) concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments at common law and the scope of the “public policy” defence to recognition. The dispute settled shortly before the hearing of the appeal was due to take place.
• Excalibur Ventures LLC v. Texas Keystone [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 289: dispute concerning rights to exploit oil and gas fields in the Middle East; availability of anti-arbitration injunction.
• Webster Thompson v. JG Pears [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 339: Commercial Court trial concerning the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Important development of the law concerning satisfactory quality of goods, and referred to in Benjamin’s Sale of Goods.
• Sinco v. Lloyd’s Syndicate 980: appeal to Court of Appeal concerning lis alibi pendens and the availability of damages for breach of a jurisdiction clause.
• The Front Comor [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 391 (House of Lords): availability of anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration agreements.
• Balmoral Group v. Borealis [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 629: seller’s obligations as to the quality of goods supplied under international sale contracts.

Benjamin Parker is experienced in handling complex insurance and reinsurance disputes, across the spectrum of marine and non-marine business. Between 2015 and 2018 he was instructed on behalf of excess insurers to defend the highest value insurance claim to come before the Commercial Court in London. In 2020 he was awarded Insurance Junior of the Year by Chambers & Partners. His work in this area includes the following:

• Acting for the Claimant in ABN Amro v. RSA plc and others [2021] EWHC 442 (Comm) and [2021] EWCA Civ 1789, a leading decision of the Commercial Court and Court of Appeal concerning various issues in the law of insurance, including policy interpretation, the duty of the utmost good faith, affirmation, estoppel, and the duties of insurance brokers.
• Representing excess insurers in SBM v. Zurich Insurance, the largest insurance claim before the Commercial Court. The case concerned the alleged total loss of an oil platform in the North Sea and its abandonment because of safety fears.
• Representing London underwriters in Commercial Court proceedings for the alleged total loss of three tankers seized by the government of Venezuela in response to the imposition of US sanctions.
• Representing market of leading London energy underwriters, in successful defence of claims for property damage arising out of earthquakes in the Netherlands caused by underground oil / gas drilling operations.
• Mamancochet Mining v. Aegis. Acted for claimant in leading case on the construction and application of policy sanctions clause—claim for misappropriation of cargoes exported to Iran; order for expedited trial; claim succeeded in full. (Unavailable to appear at trial because of SBM commitment, above.)
• Representing hull and machinery insurers in proceedings for alleged total loss of bulk carrier in South America, arising out of lengthy physical detention by public authorities.
• Rathbone Brothers Plc v. Novae Corporate Underwriting [2015] Lloyd’s Rep IR 95: leading modern decision of the Court of Appeal on the doctrine of subrogation in insurance law, and the limitation on the availability of a subrogated claim against a co-insured. Very substantial PI insurance claim concerning allegations of breach of trust.
• Instructed for the insured in a multi-million dollar claim for the total loss of a fishing vessel by fire/explosion in the Pacific Ocean.
• Equitas Ltd v. Walsham Bros [2014] Lloyd’s Rep IR 398 (Commercial Court): acted for Equitas in successful claim against brokers for failure to remit payments. The case raised important issues as to the scope of duties owed by insurance/reinsurance brokers, as to the construction of the Lloyd’s R&R settlement agreements, and as to limitation. Also instructed to appear in the Court of Appeal (the case settled shortly before the hearing of the appeal was due to take place).
• Reinsurance/retrocession dispute concerning damage to oil installations in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of Hurricane Katrina.
• Reinsurance arbitration concerning the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and whether very substantial contingency losses (e.g. arising out of the cancellation of the Ryder Cup / postponement of the Super Bowl) could be aggregated.
• Advising on the construction of a major European bank’s “Crime Policy” in relation to US$80 million losses caused by dishonest employees.

Many of Benjamin Parker’s recent cases have concerned disputes relating to energy and natural resources. His instructions in this area include the following:

• Representing excess insurers in SBM v. Zurich Insurance, the largest insurance claim before the Commercial Court. The case concerns the alleged total loss of an oil platform in the North Sea and its abandonment because of safety fears.
• Representing market of leading London energy underwriters, in successful defence of claims for property damage arising out of earthquakes in the Netherlands caused by underground oil / gas drilling operations.
• Representing US energy company in long-running Commercial Court dispute with Nigerian company, arising out of the breakdown of the parties’ commercial relationship. Successful applications for urgent injunctive relief, and to commit directors for contempt of court.
• Acting for the contractor in a UNCITRAL arbitration concerning oil exploration in Venezuela and urgent interim relief for security and injunctive protection. Claim for hundreds of millions of dollars arising out of various contractual disputes.
• Excalibur Ventures LLC v. Texas Keystone [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 289: dispute concerning rights to exploit oil and gas fields in the Middle East; availability of anti-arbitration injunction.
• Numerous claims arising out of the Buncefield gas explosion, raising issues as to the tort of private nuisance, the actionability of public nuisances, and the recovery of “pure” economic losses.

Benjamin Parker has been involved in some of the most significant shipping law and international carriage cases of the past decade, including The Rena casualty in New Zealand and the seminal decision of the House of Lords in The Achilleas. He is regularly instructed by P&I Clubs direct, and has been noted in the legal directories for his expertise in advising on the construction and effect of P&I Club rules. His instructions in the area of Shipping and Transport include the following:

• The Achilleas [2009] 1 AC 61: leading decision of the House of Lords on remoteness of damage in the law of contract. Represented the successful Owners in their appeal to the House of Lords.
• British American Tobacco v. Exel Europe [2016] AC 262: represented BAT in appeal to the Supreme Court concerning the jurisdiction regime under the CMR convention for claims against successive carriers and the relationship between the Judgments Regulation and specialist conventions.
• The Rena: instructed by MSC (long-term time charterers) in relation to the grounding of the containership Rena and her subsequent loss.
• The Ocean Glory [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 67: successful challenge to arbitral award under s. 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for failure by tribunal to act fairly, contrary to the requirements of s. 33. One of the very few successful challenges under s. 68.
• The K Amber [2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 121: application under s. 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 arising out of tribunal’s dismissal of an arbitration for “want of prosecution” under s. 41 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
• Representing owners in multi-million dollar Commercial Court dispute concerning the contamination of an oil cargo during ship-to-ship operations off the east coast of Africa.
• Representing charterers in a multi-party arbitration concerned with the inability of an LNG carrier to perform cargo liftings as a result of being shut out of a loading terminal following an adverse SIRE inspection.
• Defending owners in an arbitration claim in excess of US$100 million arising out of the grounding of a bulk carrier in Australia; allegations of unseaworthiness and incompetence of the master.
• Numerous disputes under shipbuilding contracts, including representing the shipyard in a series of successful arbitrations arising out of the transactions which were considered by the Supreme Court in Rainy Sky SA v. Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 WLR 2900.
• Numerous disputes under MOAs for the sale of vessels and superyachts. These include an arbitration concerning allegations of fraud and forgery against a Russian purchaser of a superyacht, and an arbitration raising complex legal issues as to the effect of Clause 9 of the Norwegian Saleform and the nature of statutory liens in Admiralty.
• VTC v. PVS [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 527: Commercial Court decision concerning the construction of a tanker time charterparty, and the application of a warranty of fitness to the “slop” tanks.
• Author of “Liability for incorrectly clausing bills of lading” [2003] LMCLQ 201 (an article cited in Carver on Bills of Lading and Voyage Charters), and other journal articles on shipping law / international trade.

Much of Benjamin’s Parker work concerns international arbitration across the whole spectrum of commercial disputes. He is also experienced in making applications to the English courts in relation to arbitrations, and succeeded in making one of the few successful challenges to an arbitration award under s. 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. Recent work in this area includes:

• The Ocean Glory [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 67: successful challenge to arbitral award under s. 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for failure by tribunal to act fairly, contrary to the requirements of s. 33. One of the very few successful challenges under s. 68.
• The K Amber [2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 121: application under s. 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 arising out of tribunal’s dismissal of an arbitration for “want of prosecution” under s. 41 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
• Numerous arbitrations under shipbuilding contracts, including representing the shipyard in a series of successful arbitrations arising out of the transactions which were considered by the Supreme Court in Rainy Sky SA v. Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 WLR 2900.
• ICC arbitration in Hong Kong, concerning the impact of the global financial crisis on the performance of a long-term international sale; complex issues under the Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods as to the right to suspend performance.
• Acting for the contractor in a UNCITRAL arbitration concerning oil exploration in Venezuela and urgent interim relief for security and injunctive protection. Claim for hundreds of millions of dollars arising out of various contractual disputes.
• Excalibur Ventures LLC v. Texas Keystone [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 289: dispute concerning rights to exploit oil and gas fields in the Middle East; availability of anti-arbitration injunction.

• Supreme Court case of Manchester Building Society v. Grant Thornton [2021] UKSC 20, [2021] 3 WLR 81: seminal case on the SAAMCO “scope of duty” principle in professional negligence, and the theoretical foundations of the tort of negligence.
• ABN Amro v. RSA plc and others [2021] EWHC 442 (Comm): leading decision of the Commercial Court on the duties of insurance brokers. (Also acted on appeal to the Court of Appeal: [2021] EWCA Civ 1789)
• Defending leading City firm in professional negligence claim arising out of alleged advice relating to the termination of a shipbuilding contract and conduct of arbitration.
• Equitas Ltd v. Walsham Bros [2014] Lloyd’s Rep IR 398 (Commercial Court): acted for Equitas in successful professional negligence claim against brokers for failure to remit payments. The case raised important issues as to the scope of duties owed by insurance/reinsurance brokers, as to the construction of the Lloyd’s R&R settlement agreements, and as to limitation.

Benjamin Parker is experienced in dealing with disputes falling within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court. He was instructed for MSC in the well-known Rena casualty in New Zealand. He has acted in numerous collision actions, claims for salvage, and claims in general average.