• "A brilliant mind and formidable advocate, Peter is a go-to junior for big-ticket shipping and commodities work who never fails to impress." (Legal 500, 2024)

• "He has excellent technical ability, is very responsive, can grapple with complex legal issues with ease, and advises the clients very clearly." (Legal 500, 2024)

• “Peter is a rising star in the space.” (Chambers UK, 2024)

• “He’s very approachable, very user-friendly and incredibly smart.” (Chambers UK, 2024)

• "Peter has a razor-sharp intelligence combined with excellent knowledge of the law." (Chambers UK, 2023)

• "Peter is a bright and sophisticated lawyer and will fight with determination in all circumstances." (Chambers UK, 2023)

• "He has an unusually commercial attitude to cases and is very involved in the day-to-day tactics." (Chambers UK, 2023)

• "Peter is excellent on his feet, calm, persistent and very persuasive. He is also
  always a pleasure to work with - very alert, attentive and resolution-driven." (Legal 500, 2023) 

• "A fantastic advocate with an excellent understanding of the commodities industry, he gives clear, practical advice which cuts straight to the point." (Legal 500, 2023)

• “Peter is meticulous in his drafting. He is a sharp, clever and user-friendly barrister." (Chambers UK, 2022)

• "A real superstar, he is highly intelligent and a forensic advocate - someone you really want on your side." (Legal 500, 2022)

• "Extremely user-friendly, very clear and concise both in writing and orally, always prompt, and thinks outside of the box with a view to finding a solution to problems, as opposed to just highlighting the problems." (Legal 500, 2022)

• "He has an incredibly impressive ability to navigate the complex and deftly get to the heart of any issue, he is razor-sharp." (Legal 500 Asia Pacific, 2021)

• “Peter Stevenson is knowledgeable, bright and extremely perceptive.” (Chambers UK, 2021)

• “Peter’s advice is concise and to the point, which always helps when feeding back to clients.” (Chambers UK, 2021)

• "Sharp, focused and results-driven." (Legal 500, 2021)

• "He is razor-sharp, very commercial and excellent with clients, and he has an impressive ability to deftly get to the heart of any issue." (Legal 500, 2021)

• "He's quick to respond and very easy to communicate with, as well as proactive, relaxed and tremendously competent." (Chambers UK, 2020)

• "He's intellectual and approachable." (Chambers UK, 2020)

• "Very reliable, thorough, diligent and extremely hardworking." (Legal 500, 2020)

• "A strong advocate in court and arbitration hearings." "Approachable and commercial." (Chambers UK, 2019)

• "...Gives clear, no-nonsense advice."... "A very bright and astute barrister who thinks a couple of moves ahead of the opponents..." (Chambers UK, 2018)

• "...very commercial and very responsive, he really gets to the nub of things..." "...he is good when we are struggling, he comes up with good ideas..." (Chambers UK, 2017)

• ..."very able, confident and a good advocate"... (Legal 500, 2016)

• “...very savvy, quick and sharp, he is someone who can turn things around very quickly...” “...he is very good at getting to the nub of the issue...” (Chambers UK, 2016)

• “...bright and punchy on his feet...” (Legal 500, 2015)

Peter is recommended as a leading junior in the field of shipping in both the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners.

Dry Shipping

Most of Peter’s dry shipping work is in arbitration. He has been instructed in a wide range of charterparty and bill of lading disputes concerning issues including (amongst others), unsafe port/berth claims, cargo claims (for damage and delay), unsafe cargo claims, laytime/demurrage claims, claims concerning liens on cargo and freights, speed/performance claims and off-hire claims, claims concerning piracy and war risk, claims under the NYPE implied indemnity and claims for contributions to general average.

Peter has also acted on a number of reported cases including, Shanghai Shipyard v Reignwood [2020] 2 BCLC 108, Agile Holdings Corp v Essar [2018] Buss LR 1513, Ultrabulk AS v Jagatramka [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 384, Aquavita v Ashapura [2015] EWHC 2807, Tartsinis v Navona [2015] EWHC 57, SK Shipping v STX Pan Ocean [2017] 7 WLUK 1015, The Alexandros T [2013] UKSC 70) and the leading case on anti-suit injunctions.

Recent cases include:

• 5 day arbitration concerning the withdrawal of a vessel under a charter chain following a contested deduction from hire.
• 5 day a ship-owners’ responsibility in respect of dangerous cargo. Peter was instructed as sole counsel for the Owners.
• 8 day arbitration in respect of damage to cargo said to have been caused by the grounding of a bulk carrier (total claim in excess of US$10m).
• Aquavita International v Ashapura Minechem [2015] EWHC 2807 and [2014] EWHC 2806 (Comm), in which Peter acted for the successful owners in a case determining the proper measure of loss to be applied following a repudiatory breach of a COA.
• Tartsinis v Navona Management Co [2015] EWHC 57 (Comm), in which Peter (led by Robert Bright QC) acted for the successful defendant in a dispute concerning the rectification of the price structure under which five vessels were purchased.
• SK Shipping Co Ltd v STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (2014) in which Peter acted for the claimant shipowners pursuing proceedings against a company subject to insolvency proceedings in South Korea. Peter acted in both the application for permission to proceed with the arbitration proceedings and the ensuring arbitration.

Wet Shipping

Peter is regularly instructed in collision and salvage matters.

The Atlantic Polaris in which Peter was instructed as sole counsel for the owners and insurers of an oil terminal in their High Court Claim against the owners of a vessel following a collision with a jetty.

4 day LOF arbitration (led by Timothy Hill QC) acting for salvors in high value salvage disputes.

5 day LOF arbitration (led by Timothy Hill QC) acting for salvors resisting an application for correction to an award.

Peter has a broad commercial practice and is particularly well known for his work in international trade, energy, shipbuilding / offshore construction and shipping disputes. In 2018 he was instructed in more than 40 international arbitrations in a range of forums, including ICC, UNCITRAL, LCIA, HKIAC and LMAA arbitrations. In addition Peter regularly appears in the High Court in matters relating to arbitrations and has also appeared in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

Highlights in 2018/2019 include:

• Being led by Simon Croall QC in two HKIAC references concerning the supply of components for the construction of off-shore rigs. Simon and Peter acted for the builder of the two rigs who was claiming c.US$80m from the suppliers of the components.
• Being led by Simon Rainey QC in an arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules concerning the termination of a 15 year off-take agreement. The value of the claim exceeds US$250m.
• Acting as sole counsel for the Respondent in a US$40m dollar claim brought under the LCIA Rules in respect of three share purchase agreements.
• Being led by Nigel Cooper QC in an ICC arbitration concerning the alleged theft of bullion.
• Being led by Simon Croall QC in two international arbitrations concerning the construction of two off-shore oil rigs. The value of the claims exceed US$400m.
   

"He is razor-sharp, very commercial and excellent with clients, and he has an impressive ability to deftly get to the heart of any issue." (Legal 500, 2021)

Peter has a large commodities practice and is recommended as a leading junior in the field in both the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners.

In the past year Peter has been instructed in a wide range of disputes including:

• A half-billion dollar dispute concerning alleged trade finance fraud.
• Various sale of goods arbitrations concerning both generic and specialist cargoes.
• A dispute worth more than US$400m concerning the termination of a 15 year off-take agreement (resolved in an UNCITRAL arbitration).
• Socar v Glencore - the leading case arising from the major contamination of the Druzhba pipeline in 2019. Peter represented SOCAR in its dispute with Glencore over the rejection of a cargo of 100,000mt of crude oil loaded at the Ust-Luga terminal.
• A complex CMA agreement dispute concerning the misappropriation of large quantities of cargo from secure warehouses.
• Proval v Alfred Knight in which Peter acted for the Defendant surveyors in a claim brought by the purchasers of a number of cargoes of metal ore following the identification of alleged discrepancies between quality certificates and the cargo delivered.
• A large letter of credit dispute concerning the transfer of rights of suit following delivery of goods against an LOI.

Peter has been instructed as junior counsel on a number of high-profile insurance disputes. He is also instructed as sole counsel on a broad range of marine insurance disputes. Illustrative cases include:

• The Cendor Mopu [2011] UKSC 5 in which Peter was led by Steven Gee in the first marine insurance case to reach the Supreme Court. The case turned on the scope of the inherent vice exclusion in the Institute Cargo Clauses.
• The Alexandros T [2013] UKSC 70 in which Peter (led by Steven Gee QC) acted for the successful Lloyd’s Market Insurers in the leading case on the operation of Articles 27 and 28 of the Brussels Regulation.
• Osprey Underwriting Agency v Steamship Mutual a High Court Claim concerned with the rights of contribution between consecutive insurers.
• Arbitration in which Peter acted for insurers seeking to recover payments on account from the insured.
• LMAA Arbitration in which Peter acted for the insurers in a dispute concerning the effect of a follow clause in marine insurance contract on the right to avoid for material non-disclosure.

Peter is frequently instructed in general commercial disputes, both as sole and junior counsel. Many of Peter’s commercial cases involve issues of jurisdiction or injunctive relief and he is regularly instructed on emergency injunction applications including applications for freezing injunctions, anti-suit injunctions and anti-arrest injunctions.

Illustrative cases include:

• Aquavita International v Ashapura Minechem [2015] EWHC 2807 and [2014] EWHC 2806 (Comm) in which Peter acted as sole counsel in a High Court Claim against guarantors. The case concerned the proper law to be applied to a letter of guarantee where no express choice is made.
• Tartsinis v Navona Management Co [2015] EWHC 57 (Comm), in which Peter (led by Robert Bright QC) acted for the successful defendant in a dispute concerning the rectification of a share sale agreement.
• The Alexandros T [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 223 in which Peter (led by Steven Gee QC) acted for the successful Lloyd’s market appellants in the Supreme Court. The case concerned whether proceedings in England to enforce the settlement and the jurisdiction agreements involved the same cause of action as proceedings in Greece alleged to be in breach of the settlement and the jurisdiction agreement.
• Bankhaus Wolborn v China Construction Bank [2012] EWHC 3285 in which Peter (led by Vasanti Selvaratnam QC) was instructed to seek leave to appeal a decision not to stay proceedings brought under a refund guarantee.
• Star Reefers v JFC [2012] 1 C.L.C. 294, [2011] EWCA Civ 1065, [2011] EWCA Civ 1052, [2011] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 215, in which Peter (acting on his own and led by Steven Gee QC) appeared for the successful appellants in a leading case on the circumstances in which a non-contractual anti-suit injunction should be granted.

Peter has a particular interest in the field of cross-border insolvency and has been instructed on a number of cases concerning the application of the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings and the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006. Peter has also represented various creditors seeking the winding up of debtors.

Illustrative cases include:

• SK Shipping Co Ltd v STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (2014) in which Peter acted for the shipowners seeking permission to pursue arbitration proceedings against a company subject to insolvency proceedings in South Korea.
• $3million arbitration in which Peter acted for a company subject to rehabilitation proceedings in Greece. Case turned on applicability of the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings to the new Greek rehabilitation regime.
• Madoff Securities International Ltd (in liquidation) v Yacht Bull Corporation [2010] EWHC 133 (Ch) in which Peter advised Financiere Meerschaert SA on the scope of the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings.

Peter is regularly instructed in complex and valuable shipbuilding and ship purchase disputes. He has advised on issues ranging from late delivery, repudiatory breach, refund guarantees and option agreements. Recent examples include:

• Being led by Simon Croall QC in two HKIAC references concerning the supply of components for the construction of off-shore rigs. Simon and Peter acted for the builder of the two rigs who was claiming c.US$80m from the suppliers of the componentsBeing led by Simon Croall QC in two international arbitrations concerning the construction of two off-shore oil rigs. The value of the claims exceed US$400m.
• Shanghai Shipyard v Reignwood Being led by James Turner QC in a dispute concerning the enforcement of a parent company guarante
• Acting as sole counsel for buyers in $6million arbitration claim against yard concerning delays and subsequent cancellation of the construction of two vessels.
• Acting for buyers in multimillion dollar claim alleging delayed delivery and unsatisfactory quality of a superyacht. Case raised complex issues as to the quantification of the buyers’ loss.
• Marsol DP2 v ITC Offshore (Commercial Court) in which Peter (led by Timothy Hill QC) acted for the buyers of two anchor handling tugs in a dispute concerning their on-sale following delivery.
• Tartsinis v Navona Management Co [2015] EWHC 57 (Comm), in which Peter (led by Robert Bright QC) acted for the successful defendant in a dispute concerning the rectification of the price structure under which five vessels were purchased.

Peter has been instructed in a number of offshore and energy disputes. Notable examples include:

• US$20million arbitration claim in which Peter was instructed (as sole counsel) by the constructors of a wind farm. The case concerned delays to the installation of various wind turbine generators.
• US$56million claim arising from a state oil company's failure to pay for use of rig support vessels.