Ian Chetwood
Partner
London
T +44 (0) 20 7481 0010
ianchetwood@incegd.com
Department Maritime, Insurance
Ian has significant experience in shipping cases and large scale commercial disputes in court proceedings, arbitrations and ADR for clients around the world. He advises across the full spectrum of shipping disputes, including wet cases (collisions and other casualties, salvage and pollution incidents) and dry (cargo claims, charterparty disputes, ship repair claims and marine insurance claims).
In the field of shipping disputes, Ian acts for shipowners, P&I Clubs and hull insurers, and has also represented clients in some of the leading oil spill cases of recent years. He is a member of Ince’s international emergency response team.
His expertise in dispute resolution for the shipping industry extends to P&I and marine insurance claims, where he regularly acts for shipowners, P&I and hull insurers. He has investigated insurance claims (such as claims for total loss) and provided advice on the interpretation of insurance clauses. He has given evidence on English insurance law in overseas proceedings.
He is recommended as a leading lawyer by the shipping industry in the independent guides to the legal profession.
Accolades:
Legal 500, Leading Individual
My matter highlights
Ian has acted in many significant cases including the Haven, (oil tanker explosion off Genoa); the Sea Empress (grounding and oil spill off Milford Haven); the Indian Grace (the House of Lords on estoppel and the nature of an in rem action); the Limburg (exploded off Yemen); the Key Singapore (disputed salvage of an oil rig); the Front Comor – Allianz v West Tankers [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 413 and case C-185/07 (The House of Lords and European Court of Justice on anti-suit injunctions); the Athena [2011] EWHC 589 ( jurisdiction and establishing contract terms); the Rena (containership grounding off Tauranga, New Zealand); and the Ocean Victory [2017] UKSC 35 (The Supreme Court on a US$170m unsafe port claim).
My testimonials and accolades
My recent publications
News / Supreme Court explains meaning of “abnormal occurrence” in context of a safe port warranty and tackles co-insurance questions
10-05-2017 / Maritime
Gard Marine and Energy Limited v. China National Chartering Company Limited and others (Ocean Victory) [2017] UKSC 35 In an important judgment handed down on 10 May 2017, the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision of 22 January 2015 that there was no breach of the safe port undertaking in this case. In doing so, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the phrase “abnormal occurrence” in the context of a safe port undertaking should be given its “ordinary meaning”. Their Lordships endorsed the Court of Appeal’s view that this meant an event that was something well removed from the normal, out of the ordinary course and unexpected: “it is something which the notional charterer or owner would not have in mind”.
News / ECJ upholds anti-suit injunction ordered by arbitral tribunal
26-05-2015 / Maritime
Gazprom (Judgment) [2015] EUECJ C-536/13 The European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) has recently confirmed that the Brussels Regulation does not prevent a EU member state court from recognising and enforcing an anti-suit injunction granted by arbitrators. Its reasoning is that arbitration and arbitral tribunals fall outside the scope of the Brussels Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001).
News / Court of Appeal confirms limitation fund may be constituted with guarantee in England
08-04-2014 / Maritime
Kairos Shipping Ltd v. Enka & Co LLC and Others (Atlantik Confidence) [2014] EWCA Civ 217
News / The recast Brussels Regulation enhancing the effectiveness of jurisdiction agreements
08-04-2014 / Maritime
Reforms to the Brussels Regulation (on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters in the EU) apply from 10 January 2015. In an article in our Winter 2014 Shipping E-Brief (“The recast Brussels Regulation: reinforcing the arbitration exception” ), we considered how certain of the changes might affect the interaction between proceedings in court and arbitration.
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.
