James M. Turner

James has a solid track record in banking and finance, with particular emphasis on financial instruments – letters of credit, bills of exchange, promissory notes and guarantees – as well as trade and asset (particularly ship) finance disputes and contracts for differences. He has appeared in a number of reported cases and has given expert evidence of English law in foreign proceedings.

• DCD Factors plc v Ramada Trading Ltd [2008] Bus LR 654, in which James advanced a successful application on behalf of a bank to set aside an injunction restraining payment under a letter of credit, distinguishing Banco Santander SA v Bayfern Ltd [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 776.
• Habib Bank Ltd. v. Central Bank of Sudan [2007] 1 WLR 470, [2007] 1 All ER (Comm) 53, [2006] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 412, representing the Claimant confirming bank in its reimbursement claim against the bank which had issued the letters of credit as long ago as 1982.  The issues canvassed included limitation, proper law, jurisdiction, service and recoverability of compound interest.  Judgment was awarded for over US$100 million.
• Ahmed v. Habib Bank Limited [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 444 (CA).  James acted for the bank in its application under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 for registration of a judgment obtained in Pakistan on bank guarantees (which themselves reflected Sharia banking principles); issues of Pakistani law arose, as did allegations of fraud.
• Cool Carriers v. HSBC [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 22, in which James acted for HSBC in defence of its rights to receive time charter hire under the terms of a financing agreement governed by New York law.
• Gangway Ltd. v. Caledonian Park Investments [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 715, an application for an intervening bank to vary a freezing order which was interfering with its security rights.

Dry shipping and commodities work is at the heart of James’s practice – and he has for some years been recommended in Shipping by Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500.  He is frequently instructed in charterparty, bill of lading and sale of goods and ship-sale disputes of all hues, involving cargo damage, unseaworthiness, due diligence, ISM, off-hire, withdrawal, safe port, bunker contamination, purchase options, demurrage and detention, cancellation, faulty repair, title, risk, rejection (and so on) – and the many and varied issues which arise in connection with them. 

He is particularly adept at difficult issues of contractual construction; technical disputes requiring an ability to master engineering and scientific expert evidence; and cases requiring a good knowledge and understanding of ships and seamanship.

Notable reported cases in this area include:

• Ravennavi SpA v New Century Shipbuilding Co Ltd [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 280, [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 24 CA – an authority cited in Lewison on the Interpretation of Contracts for a number of propositions in the construction of commercial contracts both generally and in relation to “entire agreement” clauses in particular.
• Western Bulk Carriers v. Li Hai Maritime [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 389 – the first reported trial following a withdrawal from a time charter for non-payment of hire since The Lutetian [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 140, and the only reported case to reconsider the approach taken to anti-technicality notices by Gatehouse J. in The Pamela [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 249 in the light of the House of Lords’ decision in Mannai [1997] AC 749. 
• Action Navigation Inc. v. Bottigliere Di Navigazione S.p.A. [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 432 – one of few reported cases since The Island Archon [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 227 CA on the scope of the implied indemnity under the NYPE form of time charter, and of particular significance in relation to hull-fouling.
• Vrinera v. Eastern Rich [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 465 – an important decision on the recoverability, as damages, of costs incurred in a sub-arbitration, which arose from the successful defence of a safe port claim.
• Cool Carriers v. HSBC [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.22 – a three-pronged dispute between owners, charterers and a financing bank.  An important authority on the Court’s jurisdiction to entertain claims for interpleader relief, both in terms of service out of the jurisdiction and s. 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
• The “Chitral” [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.529 – a much-cited decision of David Steel J. on straight-consigned bills of lading.
• The “Mata K” [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 614 – a significant decision on the legitimacy under the Hague Rules of “weight unknown”; provisions in bills of lading .

Recommended by the Legal 500 (2009 and 2010 editions) as a leading junior in the field, James’s numerous instructions in Energy matters have included:

• A series of connected disputes in relation to the provision and performance of an oil/gas/water separation train on an FPSO.
• A US$120m dispute regarding the maintenance of a semi-submersible MODU.
• Acting as junior counsel to the Court-appointed receivers throughout the long-running Glencore v Metro Trading litigation (see, e.g., [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 632 – a multi-handed hearing on jurisdictional issues).
• Disputes between principal offshore contractors and diving sub-contractors for allegedly faulty and non-performance.
• A multi-party dispute arising out of a project to construct a cross-border crude pipeline in the Middle East.

Shipbuilding is a key area of James’s practice which has grown very considerably in the aftermath of the collapse in the shipping market and the wider 'credit crunch'.  He is currently acting in numerous substantial disputes, more often than not leading more junior counsel against silks.  He is instructed frequently by both owners and shipyards and has experience of contracts to build barges, tugs, superyachts, Rhine navigation vessels, ro-ro ferries, bulk carriers, container carriers, gas carriers, a jack-up rig (thrusters contract), heavy-lift vessels, FPSOs and even an LPD.  In September 2009 he appeared in arbitration in Hong Kong with Caroline Pounds in a dispute arising out of a contract to build 6 oil-carrying barges for service in the Canadian arctic.

The Shipbuilding matters on which James has acted and advised have included issues of –

• Delay – damages at large and liquidated damages; rescission and repudiation; and the effect of (in)action by the buyer.
• Design risk.
• Intellectual property.
• Construction faults.
• Classification issues.
• Coating failures.
• Defective propulsion units.
• Noise levels and outfit-standards in superyachts.
• Speed and performance issues.
• Third-party execution of warranty repairs.
• Refund Guarantees.
• Claims for consequential loss.

James gave written expert evidence of English law in ancillary proceedings in the Italian Courts, and subsequently appeared at first instance and (with Simon Rainey QC) on appeal in the English Courts in Ravennavi SpA v New Century Shipbuilding Co Ltd [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 280, [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 24 CA.  The dispute concerned the proper construction of an option agreement for the construction of up to two crude and product oil tankers.  The case is now cited in Lewison on the Interpretation of Contracts in support of propositions advanced by James in his evidence in the Italian proceedings.

In addition to his shipping, shipbuilding and banking work, James is regularly instructed in a broad range of other substantial commercial disputes.  By way of example:

• Marwan v Sawiris [2010] EWHC 89 (Comm), a dispute arising out of a failed joint venture to establish a multi-media conglomerate in the Middle East.
• Aboualsaud v Aboukhater [2007] EWHC 2122, [2007] All ER (D) 107 (Sep), a €21 million claim for commission allegedly due on the sale of a Monaco hotel, which finally came to an end at the doors of the Court of Appeal in mid-2008. 
• From 2005 to 2006 he appeared for the claimant company in an action to restrain a former contractor from publicising confidential information.  The proceedings ran the full gamut of interlocutory injunction, mediation, committal application and trial.
• Mazur Media Ltd. V. Mazur Media GmbH [2004] 1 WLR 2966, [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 41 – a dispute between the insolvency practitioners charged with the (English) administrative receivership and (German) liquidation of the respective protagonists, giving rise to issues regarding the lis pendens jurisdiction under the European Insolvency Regulation and s.130(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986; title to sue in conversion; and situs delicti under Art. 5 of the Judgments Regulation.
• In 2003, he acted in an intellectual property dispute arising out of an agreement for the distribution in Japan of medical instruments manufactured in Denmark.

Recommended as a leading junior in the field in the 2010 edition of the Legal 500, arbitration is the chosen forum in well over half the matters on which James acts or advises.  Many of those disputes come before LMAA panels, but James also has considerable experience of other arbitral settings, including the ICC and LCIA.  He has been instructed in cases for arbitration in Rotterdam, Singapore and Hong Kong, appearing in Hong Kong with Caroline Pounds in September 2009.

In addition, he is regularly appointed arbitrator – primarily in shipping and commodities disputes – and has been appointed in both LCIA and ICC references.

James appeared in the following reported cases:

• Vrinera v. Eastern Rich [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 465 – an important decision on the recoverability, as damages, of costs incurred in a sub-arbitration.
• Cool Carriers v. HSBC [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.22 – a leading case on the effect of an arbitration clause on an application for interpleader relief.

James was accredited as a mediator by CEDR in 2001, achieving “registered” status the following year (which required a certain minimum number of mediations and CPD points).  Since accreditation he has accumulated considerable experience of mediations, as mediator, assistant mediator and counsel. 
As mediator, James brings to bear an individual  blend of analytical skill, tenacity, humour and respect – without shrinking when appropriate to challenge – and an ability to think creatively, commercially and “outside the box” of the particular dispute. 

He is particularly adept at analyzing the value of the particular dispute to the parties, and the risks involved in pursuing it.

The mediations in which James has taken part have featured disputes involving:

• Banking
• CMR
• Commercial Contracts
• Commercial Fraud
• Financial Services
• International Sale of Goods
• Multiple parties
• Professional Negligence
• Shipbuilding
• Shipping disputes of various hues
• Travel industry

Well over half these disputes settled at or as a result of the mediation.

The co-author of Derrington & Turner on Admiralty Matters (see “Publications”), James is a highly-experienced Admiralty junior, often cited for his prowess in wet work in Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500.  He is frequently instructed in and has wide experience of –

• Salvage: usually LOF, but also private / ASG references and in the Admiralty Court – as in The Yolaine [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 7. He has recently acted for owners in a very substantial SCOPIC claim, in which the counterclaim was for loss of a nearly-new capesize bulk carrier.
• Collision, as in Global Mariner v. Atlantic Crusader [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 699.
• Wreck removal, as in The “Green Opal” [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 523.
• Arrest, as in The “Visvliet”/”Tjaskemolen” [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 465 and 476, and The “Giuseppe di Vittorio” (Nos. 1 and 2) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 136 and 661.
• Limitation.  In 2007, James appeared in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal of Gibraltar in Zelikov v Merlin, arguing that the Court of Appeal’s decision in The Western Regent [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 359 (that limitation can be invoked in the absence of liability proceedings) was wrong.  He is often instructed on substantial matters raising important points of principle on limitation.

Send a copy of this CV