Jason Robinson

Jason accepts instructions in all areas of commercial law and has an extensive commercial practice which includes aviation, banking & finance, civil fraud, commodities, construction, energy, insurance, professional negligence, sanctions, shareholder & company disputes, shipping & admiralty and superyacht & supercar disputes.

He is recognised by the legal directories as a leading junior in commercial litigation and is described as “one of the best juniors at the London Bar” (Legal 500), a “very strong cross-examiner” (Legal 500) and “a natural advocate” (Legal 500). He is also described as an “in-demand barrister whose civil fraud practice commands respect” (Chambers & Partners).

His recent experience includes:

• Sucden Financial Limited v (1) TMT Metals AG; (2) Prateek Gupta; (3) Mine Craft Limited [2024] EWHC 1051 (Comm): obtaining summary judgment for a commodities, futures and options trader, for debts due pursuant to the terms of a trading facility.
• Sub 20 Ltd v Royalton Investment Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 907 (Comm): obtaining summary judgment for $26m plus interest and costs in respect of a memorandum of loan agreement.
• Addax Energy SA v Petro Trade Inc [2023] EWHC 1609 (Comm): acting for the claimants in a commodities dispute that concerned whether the parties had entered into a term agreement by way of a sufficiently consistent course of dealing.
• Care Tree Invest 2 Ltd v Bell [2023] EWHC 1151 (Comm): representing the defendant in a civil fraud trial regarding the sale of a group of care homes.
• Bell & Ors -v- Singh & Ors [2022] EWHC 3272 (Comm): Jason acted for the successful claimants at a 6-day trial in this civil fraud claim.
• Geoquip Marine Operations AG v (1) Tower Resources Cameroon SA; (2) Tower Resources Plc [2022] EWHC 531 (Comm): trial concerning non-payment for offshore geotechnical investigation services. [2021] EWHC 3456 (Comm): responding to an application to adjourn made on the first day of trial. [2023] EWCA Civ 304: successful appeal to the Court of Appeal on the question of whether standby charges were due under the contract.
• Pisante & Ors v Logothetis & Ors [2022] EWHC 2575 (Comm): 2-day consequentials hearing following the Court’s judgment at [2022] EWHC 161 (Comm). Hearing concerned the issue of relief consequent upon rescission for deceit and the application of Henderson v Henderson.
• DD Classics Limited v Kent Chen [2022] EWHC 1357 (Comm): successful summary judgment application regarding the sale of a Ferrari race car.
• Addax Energy SA v Petro Trade Inc [2022] EWHC 237 (Comm): successfully defending a jurisdiction challenge. Court confirms that a course of dealing does not need to be extensive or entirely consistent to incorporate terms, so long as it is sufficiently consistent.
• PetroSaudi Oil Services (Venezuela) Limited v Clyde & Co LLP [2021] EWHC 444 (Ch): Miles J refused to make an order requiring Clyde & Co to pay escrow monies of $325m into Court on the grounds that transfer of the funds by Clyde & Co into Court would expose Clyde & Co to the risk of criminal and civil sanctions in the United States, consequent upon an in rem arrest warrant issued by the Californian District Court. [2021] EWHC 747 (Ch): Miles J later granted the order sought by PetroSaudi, after the in rem arrest warrant was recalled in the USA.
• (1) Quadra Commodities S.A.; (2) Ifchor (Switzerland) S.A.; (3) Amaggi S.A. v International Bank of St-Petersburg (in liquidation) [2021] EWHC 119 (Comm): Jason represented the successful respondent to an application for a peremptory order to bar the respondent from participating in a substantive application for declaratory relief unless and until it paid a £100,000 costs order.
• Ferand Business Corporation & Ors v Maritime Investments Holdings Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 2665 (Comm), [2021] EWHC 197 (Comm), [2021] EWHC 40 (Comm): substantively and procedurally complex dispute between shareholders and siblings concerning the management of a fleet of bulk carriers. Jason represented the successful Claimants, who were awarded indemnity costs.
• Alfred Schefenacker v Darko Horvat [2020] EWHC 506 (Ch): High Court confirmed its jurisdiction under the Brussels Recast Regulation to make a Part 71 order in respect of judgments issued by courts within the EU. Jason represented the successful respondent in a contested application to set aside the Part 71 order.
• UNCITRAL Arbitration (2017 – 2021): Jason was instructed in a 3-year UNCITRAL arbitration concerning an off-shore drilling dispute and the performance of a specialist drill ship under a 7-year charter. The claim was worth in excess of US$2bn. Jason remains instructed with respect to ongoing proceedings in the High Court.
• ICC Arbitration (2020): Jason has been instructed by an EU member state in a claim, worth in excess of €5bn, concerning the construction of naval submarines.
• Saab v Dangate Consulting Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 546 (Comm), [2019] EWHC 1558 (Comm), [2020] EWHC 48 (Comm): long-running litigation concerning a breach of confidence claim on behalf of shareholders of a major bank against two ex-Scotland Yard police officers acting as private investigators. Jason represented the successful claimants.
• Apache Beryl Ltd v Marathon Oil UK LLC [2017] EWHC 2258 (Comm), [2017] EWHC 2462 (Comm), [2017] EWHC 2504 (Comm): acting for the Fortune 500 oil and gas conglomerate Apache Corporation, and its subsidiaries, in expedited proceedings in the Commercial Court. Jason was responsible for preparing a case for trial in 7 weeks that opponents estimated would require one year of preparation.
• Financial Services Compensation Scheme Limited & Ors v Firstplus Financial Group Plc & Ors: acting for FSCS in a multi-million pound group litigation claim arising out of the sale of PPI policies to thousands of consumers. Jason is accordingly familiar with the substantive and procedural issues that often arise with respect to group litigation orders.

Jason regularly appears in the Business and Property Courts and has extensive experience of making and responding to applications for urgent interim relief, including injunctions and Norwich Pharmacal orders, and other interlocutory relief. Examples include:

• (1) JOL; (2) JWL v JPM [2023] EWHC 2486 (Comm): application under s.44(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996. Foxton J’s judgment considers the scope of a tribunal’s power under s.38(4) of the Act and the Court’s powers under s.44 of the Act.
• PetroSaudi Oil Services (Venezuela) Limited v Clyde & Co LLP [2021] EWHC 747 (Ch): urgent application for an order requiring a firm of solicitors and trustees to pay escrow monies of $325m into Court pursuant to CPR 64.
• Alfred Schefenacker v Darko Horvat [2020] EWHC 506 (Ch): successfully representing the respondent in a contested application to set aside a Part 71 order, during which the Court confirmed its jurisdiction under the Brussels Recast Regulation to make a Part 71 order in respect of judgments issued by courts within the EU.
• Ocean Prefect Shipping Ltd v Dampskibsselskabet Norden AS [2019] EWHC 3368 (Comm): urgent application concerning the admissibility of an MAIB report in arbitration.
• Applications in the Commercial Court for a freezing injunction, ancillary disclosure order and third-party disclosure order in aid of the enforcement of an arbitral award.
• Obtaining a series of freezing injunctions and Norwich Pharmacal orders in the Chancery Division on behalf of a London firm of solicitors that had been the victim of fraud.
• Obtaining a series of freezing injunctions and Norwich Pharmacal orders in the Chancery Division on behalf of an international engineering, procurement and construction contractor that had been the victim of fraud.
• Obtaining a prohibitory injunction pursuant to section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to restrain the respondent from taking steps to arrest the applicant’s vessel in South America.
• Obtaining an order for security for costs pursuant to section 70(6) of the Arbitration Act 1996.
• Obtaining permanent freezing injunctions at the return date of a number of ex parte applications.

Jason is recognised by the directories areas a “Band 1” practitioner in this area, and is described by Chambers & Partners as a “respected commercial litigator who has had involvement in a range of leading energy cases. He has acted for a number of prominent energy entities including major oil companies” (Chambers & Partners).

Recent work includes:

• Premier Oil UK Limited v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Limited [2023] EWHC 3269 (Comm): acting for the successful claimants in a dispute regarding the appointment and instruction of a contractual referee.
• UNCITRAL Arbitration (2022): US$19m claim arising out of an alleged well control incident in the Douala Basin, Cameroon.
• PetroSaudi Oil Services (Venezuela) Limited v Clyde & Co LLP [2021] EWHC 444 (Ch), [2021] EWHC 747 (Ch): obtaining an order requiring a firm of solicitors and trustees to pay escrow monies of $325m into Court pursuant to CPR 64. This followed a successful 3-year UNCITRAL arbitration in which Jason was instructed, where PetroSaudi was awarded over £379m.
• Ad Hoc Arbitration (2020): representing an oil major in a high-value dispute concerning the unsuccessful conversion of a combined sulphur/bitumen carrier which led to deflagrations onboard the vessel in Dublin.
• Representing the Apache Corporation, and its subsidiaries, in expedited Commercial Court proceedings which gave rise to numerous interim hearings: Apache Beryl Ltd v Marathon Oil UK LLC[2017] EWHC 2258 (Comm) (order for an expedited trial made by Mr Justice Males), [2017] EWHC 2462 (Comm) (Sir Jeremy Cooke granted permission to amend pleadings 2 weeks before expedited trial, considering CIP Properties [2015] EWHC 1345 (TCC)), [2017] EWHC 2504 (Comm)).
• Instructed to represent an international company specialising in offshore oil and gas exploration in a UNCITRAL arbitration (Paris seat) in a claim worth in excess of US$ 2bn.

Jason has particular experience in advising those with interests in the North Sea, including oil majors, on the meaning and effect of long-term supply agreements.

Jason specialises in a wide variety of shipping and international trade matters and is recognised by the directories in this field, who describe him as “an absolute star” (Legal 500), an “exceptional junior” (Chambers & Partners), “a strong advocate” (Legal 500), and “completely unflappable, excellent on his feet, confident and assured” (Chambers & Partners).

Work includes:

• Sucden Financial Limited v (1) TMT Metals AG; (2) Prateek Gupta; (3) Mine Craft Limited [2024] EWHC 1051 (Comm): obtaining summary judgment for a commodities, futures and options trader, for debts due pursuant to the terms of a trading facility.
• Sub 20 Ltd v Royalton Investment Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 907 (Comm): obtaining summary judgment for $26m plus interest and costs in respect of a memorandum of loan agreement.
• Eurobank S.A. v Momentum Maritime S.A. & Ors [2024] EWHC 210 (Comm): obtaining summary judgment for a creditor bank, in a claim concerning the issue of whether the bank breached duties as an equitable mortgagee over vessels that were held as security for a debt.
• (1) JOL; (2) JWL v JPM [2003] EWHC 2486 (Comm): application under s.44(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996. Foxton J’s judgment considers the scope of a tribunal’s power under s.38(4) of the Act and the Court’s powers under s.44 of the Act.
• Viking Trading OU v Louis Dreyfus Company Suisse SA [2023] EWHC 2160 (Comm): guidance given by Bright J as to when and how respondents to an application for permission to appeal under s.69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 should apply for their costs in the event that the application is not granted.
• Geoquip Marine Operations AG v (1) Tower Resources Cameroon SA; (2) Tower Resources Plc [2022] EWHC 531 (Comm): trial concerning non-payment for offshore geotechnical investigation services. [2022] EWHC 1408 (Comm): judgment on consequentials. [2021] EWHC 3456 (Comm): responding to an application to adjourn made on the first day of trial. See also [2023] EWCA Civ 304: successful appeal to the Court of Appeal on the question of whether standby charges were due under the contract.
• Addax Energy SA v Petro Trade Inc [2022] EWHC 237 (Comm): successfully defending a jurisdiction challenge. Court confirms that a course of dealing does not need to be extensive or entirely consistent to incorporate terms, so long as it is sufficiently consistent.
• Ferand Business Corporation & Ors v Maritime Investments Holdings Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 2665 (Comm), [2021] EWHC 197 (Comm), [2021] EWHC 40 (Comm): substantively and procedurally complex dispute between shareholders and siblings concerning the management of a fleet of bulk carriers. Jason represented the successful Claimants, who were awarded indemnity costs.
• ICC Arbitration (2020): Jason has been instructed by an EU member state in a claim, worth in excess of €5bn, concerning the construction of naval submarines.
• Ocean Prefect Shipping Ltd v Dampskibsselskabet Norden AS [2019] EWHC 3368 (Comm): urgent application concerning the admissibility of an MAIB report in arbitration.
• Alianca Navegacao e Logistica Ltda v Ameropa SA (M/V “SANTA ISABELLA”) [2019] EWHC 3152 (Comm): 5-day trial concerning a claim for demurrage raising issues of deviation, the Article III rule 2 Hague-Visby obligation regarding ventilation, speed and performance, and quarantine.
• UNCITRAL Arbitration (2017 – 2021): Jason was instructed in a 3-year UNCITRAL arbitration concerning an off-shore drilling dispute and the performance of a specialist drill ship under a 7-year charter. The claim was worth in excess of US$2bn.
• LMAA Arbitration (2019): a two-week LMAA arbitration for an oil major concerning the unsuccessful conversion of a combined sulphur/bitumen carrier which led to deflagrations onboard the vessel in Dublin.
• LMAA Arbitration (2017): acting for buyers of a unique off-shore crane vessel in a claim for non-delivery worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
• LMAA Arbitration (2015): represented owners in a 5-day arbitration concerning cargo hold damage caused by a dangerous cargo. The case raised issues of seaworthiness and the scope of the implied indemnity.
• Marine Services (Grimsby) Limited v. Associated British Ports [2014] EWHC 4254 (Admlty): application for pre-action disclosure in the Admiralty Court.

Jason regularly advises on issues arising out of shipping, salvage and international trade contracts. Recent examples include advices on cargo liens, liens over sub-freight, the operation of SCOPIC clauses, unsafe port claims, general average and claims concerning dangerous cargo.

Jason has acted as an expert on English law in foreign courts, including in a case before the High Court of Singapore.

Jason receives regular instructions to represent shipyards and buyers in respect to disputes arising out of the construction of commercial vessels and luxury superyachts. Such disputes typically concern construction defects and complex expert evidence. Jason is also regularly instructed with respect to disputes arising from the chartering of superyachts, by both owners and charterers. According to the directories, Jason is “well known for representing clients in superyacht and shipbuilding cases” (Chambers & Partners).

Recent work includes:

• An ongoing LMAA arbitration concerning the non-completion of a luxury superyacht worth €63m.
• An ongoing LMAA arbitration concerning the build of a luxury 50m superyacht worth €35m.
• An ongoing LMAA arbitration concerning a defective engine system and deck mist system onboard one of the largest charter superyachts in the world.
• An ongoing LMAA arbitration concerning the defective design and construction of a 53m superyacht worth €26m. The case involves highly technical expert evidence.
• A two-week LMAA arbitration concerning the non-delivery and specification of a luxury superyacht. The case included issues of critical path analysis, stability and seaworthiness.
• Acting for owners of a superyacht in an LMAA arbitration brought by a celebrity charterer with respect to a dispute about licensing restrictions.
• Acting for a celebrity charterer with respect to a dispute that arose after a summer charter of a superyacht.
• Acting for buyers of a unique offshore crane vessel in a defects claim worth hundreds of millions.

Jason also advises buyers of luxury superyachts at a pre-contractual stage, to assist in the review and amendment of draft yacht construction agreements. A recent example is advising the buyer of a €20m superyacht to be built by a well-known Italian shipyard. He accordingly has an in-depth understanding of the standard form of a wide range of shipyard superyacht contracts.

Insurance & Reinsurance is a mainstay of Jason’s practice and he is regularly instructed to appear in Court and arbitration (including Bermuda Form) to represent both assured and insurers. He is recognised by the directories as “an excellent advocate” who is “all over the detail of technical insurance points” (Legal 500). Current and recent work includes:

• Representing all-risks insurers in respect of disputes relating to aircraft in Russia.
• Representing brokers in multi-million-pound negligence dispute.
• Representing professional indemnity insurers in a claim regarding the enforcement of RIN (Renewable Identification Number) legislation by the US Environmental Protection Agency.
• Ad Hoc Arbitration (2023): US$10m claim under an all-risks policy arising out of loss and damage caused to an aquafarming facility.
• UNCITRAL Arbitration (2022): US$19m claim arising out of an alleged well control incident in the Douala Basin, Cameroon.
• ProSight Global Inc v (1) Randall & Quilter II Holdings Limited; (2) Randall & Quilter Underwriting Management Holdings Limited [2021] EWHC 228 (Comm): a successful application for summary judgment, concerning the proper construction of a best endeavours obligation to procure the release of Funds at Lloyd’s.
• Bermuda Form Arbitration (2020 – 2021): acting for an insurer in a coverage claim brought by a religious organisation, worth $34m.
• Ad Hoc Arbitration (2019): representing a major insurer in a 2-week arbitration against a FTSE 100 medical device manufacturer in a $50m coverage claim under an excess layer policy containing Bermuda Form wording.
• Advising a major insurer listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange with respect to the proper construction of its business interruption policy wording, and its reinsurance policy, further to the spread of Coronavirus in Africa.
• Providing coverage advice to a major insurer with respect a number of its credit risks policies in light of Coronavirus.
• Acting for an oil major with respect to a claim for cover under its non-payment insurance policy.

Jason also regularly acts and advises on marine insurance disputes and has recently advised an assured mortgagee of a vessel as to whether a notice of abandonment is required where a claim for constructive total loss is made under a Mortgagees Interest Insurance (MII) policy (with Peter MacDonald Eggers QC).

Jason has advised a wide range of interests in respect of insurance and reinsurance issues arising out of COVID-19, including the proper construction of business interruption wording (with and without a physical damage proviso), aggregation, “hours limit” clauses, causation (Orient Express etc.) and quantum. Ongoing work also includes advising with respect to trade credit insurance policies and D&O insurance.

Jason’s work in this area involves both domestic and offshore construction projects, and he was recently instructed to advise with respect to a number of high-value claims concerning an offshore oil rig. He is also regularly instructed to advise parties during the course of ongoing projects, which often include a host of professional negligence issues.

Recent arbitral work includes:

• Acting in a multi-million pound property construction dispute on JCT terms (as sole counsel).
• Acting in a multi-million dollar ICC dispute arising out of the construction of the South Stream pipeline project.

Jason’s insurance practice often overlaps with construction work and he has advised on a number of “construction all risks” policies. He is currently instructed (as sole counsel) by a group of contractors in an £80m dispute with a major insurer in respect of primary and excess layers of professional indemnity insurance policies. The underlying dispute concerns alleged building defects discovered following investigations prompted by the Grenfell fire.

Financial services is a rapidly expanding area of Jason’s practice and he was recently instructed by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in a multi-million-pound claim against a number of financial institutions arising out of the sale of PPI policies to thousands of consumers. Jason also regularly advises in this area and recent work includes a number of cases concerning the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products.

Jason regularly accepts instructions in the field of aviation. Recent work includes acting for a private luxury charter company in respect of breach of aircraft lease agreements and non-payment of security deposits under aircraft sale contracts, and advising a cargo airline in a professional negligence claim. Jason also has recent experience with cases concerning the carriage of goods by air.

Jason regularly acts in professional negligence cases. Recent work includes Saab v Dangate Consulting Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 48 (Comm), [2019] EWHC 2602 (Comm), [2019] EWHC 1558 (Comm), [2018] EWHC 546 (Comm), where he represented shareholders of a bank in a breach of confidentiality claim against ex-Scotland Yard private investigators. Other work includes acting for the claimant against a firm of accountants and tax advisers with respect to negligent advice to invest in supposedly tax-efficient film investment schemes, and advising a cargo airline in a professional negligence claim (concerning both solicitor and barrister negligence).

Jason regularly advises on company and insolvency matters, as well as shareholder disputes, and recent work includes:

• Ferand Business Corporation & Ors v Maritime Investments Holdings Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 2665 (Comm), [2021] EWHC 197 (Comm), [2021] EWHC 40 (Comm): substantively and procedurally complex dispute between shareholders and siblings concerning the management of a fleet of bulk carriers. Jason represented the successful Claimants, who were awarded indemnity costs (led by David Allen QC).
• Acting for shareholders in response to an unfair prejudice petition.
• Acting for sellers of a large chain of food outlets to recover sums due under certain loan notes valued at around £1.5m after the buyers issued stop notices.
• Advising on the merits of a misfeasance action against a liquidator and former directors of a well-known company.

• Sucden Financial Limited v (1) TMT Metals AG; (2) Prateek Gupta; (3) Mine Craft Limited [2024] EWHC 1051 (Comm)
• Sub 20 Ltd v Royalton Investment Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 907 (Comm)
• Eurobank S.A. v Momentum Maritime S.A. & Ors [2024] EWHC 210 (Comm)
• (1) JOL; (2) JWL v JPM [2023] EWHC 2486 (Comm)
• Viking Trading OU v Louis Dreyfus Company Suisse SA [2023] EWHC 2160 (Comm)
• Addax Energy SA v Petro Trade Inc [2023] EWHC 1609 (Comm)
• Care Tree Invest 2 Ltd v Bell [2023] EWHC 1151 (Comm)
• Geoquip Marine Operations AG v (1) Tower Resources Cameroon SA; (2) Tower Resources Plc [2023] EWCA Civ 304
• Bell & Ors -v- Singh & Ors [2022] EWHC 3272 (Comm)
• Geoquip Marine Operations AG v (1) Tower Resources Cameroon SA; (2) Tower Resources Plc [2022] EWHC 531 (Comm)
• Geoquip Marine Operations AG v (1) Tower Resources Cameroon SA; (2) Tower Resources Plc [2022] EWHC 1408 (Comm)
• Pisante & Ors v Logothetis & Ors [2022] EWHC 2575 (Comm)
• DD Classics Limited v Kent Chen [2022] EWHC 1357 (Comm)
• DD Classics Limited v Kent Chen [2022] EWHC 1404 (Comm)
• Addax Energy SA v Petro Trade Inc [2022] EWHC 237 (Comm)
• PetroSaudi Oil Services (Venezuela) Ltd v Clyde & Co [2021] EWHC 444 (Ch), [2021] EWHC 747 (Ch)
• Quadra Commodities SA & Ors v International Bank of St-Petersburg [2021] EWHC 119 (Comm), [2021] EWHC 623 (Comm), [2021] EWHC 730 (Comm)
• ProSight Global Inc v (1) Randall & Quilter II Holdings Ltd; (2) Randall & Quilter Underwriting Management Holdings Limited [2021] EWHC 228 (Comm)
• Geoquip Marine Operations AG v (1) Tower Resources Cameroon SA; (2) Tower Resources Plc [2021] EWHC 3456 (Comm)
• Ferand Business Corporation & Ors v Maritime Investments Holdings Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 2665 (Comm), [2021] EWHC 197 (Comm), [2021] EWHC 40 (Comm)
• Alfred Schefenacker v Darko Horvat [2020] EWHC 506 (Ch)
• Saab v Dangate Consulting Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 546 (Comm), [2019] EWHC 1558 (Comm), [2020] EWHC 48 (Comm)
• Ocean Prefect Shipping Ltd v Dampskibsselskabet Norden AS [2019] EWHC 3368 (Comm)
• Alianca Navegacao e Logistica Ltda v Ameropa SA (M/V “SANTA ISABELLA”) [2019] EWHC 3152 (Comm)
• Apache Beryl Ltd v Marathon Oil UK LLC [2017] EWHC 2258 (Comm), [2017] EWHC 2462 (Comm), [2017] EWHC 2504 (Comm)
• Marine Services (Grimsby) Limited v. Associated British Ports [2014] EWHC 4254 (Admlty)