Menu
Quick search

Reema Shour

Professional Support Lawyer London T +44 (0) 20 7481 0010
reemashour@incegd.com

Department Maritime, Commodities & trade, Commercial Disputes Education (University) LLB London School of Economics, LLM London School of Economics, MA Translation University of Westminster Languages English, Arabic, French, German

Reema Shour

You, Reema Shour
& Ince, in any case

Reema has been a professional support lawyer since 2009, specialising in shipping, trade, marine insurance and dispute resolution. She produces and co-edits the firm’s external shipping and trade publications, as well as writing a number of internal publications on shipping, commercial and dispute resolution topics.

Reema manages the firm’s internal know-how system, arranges client seminars and internal training and works closely with the firm’s BD team to monitor the shipping sector and keep clients regularly informed of relevant commercial developments. She assists members of the firm with legal research and other inquiries and provides a key internal contact and information point for the global shipping, trade and marine insurance groups.

She has contributed to various external publications, including “Getting the Deal Through” and “World Arbitration Reporter.”

Prior to joining Ince, Reema worked as a shipping and trade lawyer at a number of London shipping law firms. She dealt regularly with all manner of dry and wet shipping disputes, including a wide variety of contract of carriage cases, cargo claims, collisions, general average and marine insurance claims. She also advised on trade and commodities and sale of goods disputes. Most of her work involved international elements.

Quote

I PRODUCE THE CLIENT SHIPPING AND TRADE PUBLICATIONS, AND ORGANISE THE REGULAR CLIENT SHIPPING SEMINARS, THEREBY ALLOWING CLIENTS TO KEEP UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LATEST LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS. INTERNALLY, I ENSURE THAT FEE EARNERS ARE PROVIDED WITH ALL NECESSARY LEGAL, TECHNICAL AND MARKET INFORMATION THAT ALLOWS THEM TO PROVIDE THE CLIENTS WITH A FIRST-CLASS, EFFICIENT AND COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICE.”

Professional Associations & Memberships

  • Member of the Women’s International Shipping and Trading Association (“WISTA”)

  • Member of P & I Information Professionals

  • Member of the Association of Litigation Professional Support Lawyers (“ALPS”

  • Member of Arbitration PSL Group

What you may not know about Reema

I enjoy travelling, reading, art exhibitions and good food.

My recent publications

Insights / Court considers scope and effect of demurrage clause

16-09-2020 / Maritime

K Line Pte Ltd v. Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd (Eternal Bliss) [2020] EWHC 2373 (Comm)

Court considers scope and effect of demurrage clause

Insights / ICLG - United Kingdom: Shipping Laws and Regulations

20-08-2020 / Maritime

United Kingdom covers common issues in shipping laws and regulations - including marine casualty, cargo claims, passenger claims, arrest and security - in 40 jurisdictions.

ICLG - United Kingdom: Shipping Laws and Regulations

Insights / Court asserts its jurisdiction in marine insurance dispute

29-06-2020 / Maritime

In an insurance coverage dispute, the English Commercial Court has held that the insurers had much the better of the argument that the policies in question incorporated an exclusive English Court jurisdiction clause.

Court asserts its jurisdiction in marine insurance dispute

News / Court confirms BARECON classification obligation is absolute

04-04-2019 / Maritime

Silverburn Shipping (Iom) Ltd v. Ark Shipping Company LLC (M/V Arctic) [2019] EWHC 376 (Comm)

Court confirms BARECON classification obligation is absolute

News / Court of Appeal confirms: privilege rules!

24-09-2018 / Maritime

Director of the Serious Fraud Office v. Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd and the Law Society [2018] EWCA Civ 2006 In a much anticipated decision, the Court of Appeal has held that a multinational corporation that came under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) was entitled to assert litigation privilege over various categories of documents that had been generated as part of its internal investigation into a whistle-blower’s allegations of corruption within its organisation. In doing so, the Court of Appeal rejected the High Court’s more restrictive approach to litigation privilege.

Court of Appeal confirms: privilege rules!

News / Narrow construction of privilege entitles SFO to disclosure of corporation’s internal documents

11-07-2017 / Maritime

The Director of the Serious Fraud Office v. Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB)

Narrow construction of privilege entitles SFO to disclosure of corporation’s internal documents

News / Court of Appeal decides obligation to pay charterparty hire is not a condition

07-10-2016 / Maritime

Spar Shipping A.S. v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co. Ltd [2016] EWCA CIV 982 On 7 October 2016, the Court of Appeal handed down the eagerly awaited appeal decision from the Commercial Court decision in Spar Shipping A.S. v. Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co. Ltd. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal made by Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co.

Court of Appeal decides obligation to pay charterparty hire is not a condition

News / GAFTA default clause and assessment of damages: Supreme Court hands Sellers a golden victory

29-01-2016 / Commodities & Trade

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that the Buyers under a sale contract on GAFTA 49 terms could only recover nominal damages for the Sellers’ wrongful cancellation of the contract. A Russian legislative embargo on the export of wheat having been announced, the Sellers wrongfully purported to cancel the contract prematurely before the end of the shipment period. As it transpired, the embargo was maintained throughout and beyond the shipment period, such that if the Sellers had not acted prematurely, they would have been contractually entitled to cancel the contract at the end of the shipment period. The Supreme Court unanimously held that, on its true construction, the GAFTA default clause did not entitle buyers to recover significant damages for sellers’ breach of contract where they had suffered no loss as a result of that breach.

GAFTA default clause and assessment of damages: Supreme Court hands Sellers a golden victory

News / Supreme Court declines jurisdiction over successive carriers in carriage of goods by road dispute

05-11-2015 / Maritime

British American Tobacco Denmark AS and others v Kazemier Transport BVBritish American Tobacco Switzerland SA v H Essers Security Logistics BV and another nbsp2015 UKSC 65

Supreme Court declines jurisdiction over successive carriers in carriage of goods by road dispute

News / Court construes “Notices” provision in GAFTA 64 contract

06-08-2014 / Commodities & Trade

Soufflet Negoce SA v. Fedcominvest Europe SARL [2014] EWHC 2405 (Comm) The decision in this case provides helpful guidance on the construction of the “Notices” provision in GAFTA 64 (General Contract for grain in bulk FOB terms). The Court upheld the GAFTA Board of Appeal award which found that the provision in the contract, whereby any notice received after 1600 hours on a business day would be deemed to have been received the following day, applied only in the case of resales and repurchases (which was not the case here). The commercial reality was that, in those cases, it is particularly important that notices up or down the chain are served without delay because intermediary sellers or buyers in the chain may otherwise be prejudiced if the notice is not received in time to be passed on.

Court construes “Notices” provision in GAFTA 64 contract

News / The recast Brussels Regulation: reinforcing the arbitration exception

21-01-2014 / Maritime

The Brussels Regulation governs the jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil matters in the EU. The basic rule is that a defendant should be sued in the courts of the EU Member State in which it is domiciled. The jurisdictional rules of the Brussels Regulation are stated to apply to court proceedings only and not to arbitration. Conflicts of jurisdiction have, however, arisen where proceedings are commenced in an EU member state, contrary to a contractual arbitration clause providing for arbitration in another Member State. Recent revisions to the Brussels Regulation, due to come into force in January 2015, seek to address these conflicts. Our article considers the revisions relating to the “arbitration exception” in the Brussels Regulation and the practical effect they might have for parties agreeing to arbitrate their disputes in an EU country.

The recast Brussels Regulation: reinforcing the arbitration exception