• "He is always willing to go the extra mile for his clients." (Chambers UK, 2025)
• "Henry Ellis is very good - a strong communicator and a pleasure to work with." (Chambers UK, 2025)
• "He is very strong, collegial, and his writing is fabulous." (Chambers UK, 2025)
• "Henry is extremely good.  He is very clear in his written work and his oral advocacy is excellent." (Legal 500, 2025)
• "Henry puts in maximum effort. He has a first-class grasp of complex disputes." (Legal 500, 2025)
• "Henry is outstanding. He provides timely, considered and pragmatic advice." (Legal 500 Asia Pacific, 2024)
• "Henry is extremely user-friendly, responsive and quick to understand complicated issues and present difficult points of law in a manner which is easy for clients to understand." (Legal 500, 2024)
• "Henry is quick on his feet and is able to put forth persuasive arguments before a tribunal. Henry is also able to cross-examine effectively." (Legal 500, 2024)
• "Henry is very calm, which is helpful for dealing with the client, and his predictions are accurate." (Legal 500, 2024)
• “Henry is a good technical shipping lawyer who is very easy to work with and user-friendly.” (Chambers UK, 2024)
• “He is very responsive and commercially minded and grasps the facts of a case with ease.” (Chambers UK, 2024)
• "The knowledge he has of shipping law is incredibly thorough.” (Chambers UK, 2024)
• "Henry has an innate ability to deal with complex law and technical facts in a client-focused and commercial way." (Chambers UK, 2023)
• "He does not overcomplicate matters and quickly gets the heart of the issues." (Chambers UK, 2023)
• "Henry is always an excellent addition to any litigation team; he integrates well and is approachable." (Chambers UK, 2023)
• "Henry is extremely bright, imaginative and responsive. He has an agile mind and a great sense of humour." (Legal 500, 2023) 
• "A very capable and clear-thinking junior, he holds his ground and is utterly unfazed." (Legal 500, 2023)
• “Henry is willing, able and adaptable. He is very intelligent and can turn his hand to many different scenarios.” (Chambers UK, 2022)
• “Henry is an excellent and user-friendly barrister.” (Chambers UK, 2022)
• "Very bright and down to earth, he is a trusted pair of hands who can turn his hand to anything." (Legal 500, 2022)
• "He is very thorough and is able to come up with arguments that are easy to understand and accept, even when they are quite creative." (Legal 500, 2022)
• "Very user-friendly and responsive, both on substantive advices but also as a sounding board and sanity check on a more ad hoc basis." (Legal 500, 2022)
• "He has an ability to understand complex technical issues and excellent responsiveness." (Legal 500 Asia Pacific, 2021)
• “An excellent advocate, he is very smooth and very hard-working.” (Chambers UK, 2021)
• “Henry Ellis is very user-friendly and approachable, with a good sense of humour. He is extremely bright and really gets to grips with the detail of a case swiftly. He has an excellent eye for detail, and his advocacy skills are remarkable.” (Chambers UK, 2021)
• "A very bright guy who is not afraid to roll his sleeves up." (Legal 500, 2021)
• "He combines a strong work ethic and good analytical abilities with a very natural and engaging manner." (Legal 500, 2021)
• "Diligent, hardworking and personable, he effortlessly manages to strike the right balance between technical legal expertise and a commercial and strategic attitude." (Legal 500, 2021)
• "Deceptively calming during cross-examination but always delivers the punch at the right time." (Legal 500 Asia Pacific, 2020)
• "He has a first-class brain, he's responsive and he's willing to go the extra mile. He's clearly destined for silk." (Chambers UK, 2020)
• "His written advocacy is excellent; he writes the most beautiful prose. He thinks about everything he is saying and says it carefully." (Chambers UK, 2020)
• "He is calm, collected and confident." (Chambers UK, 2020)
• "Has a great eye for detail and can get up to speed with complex disputes in a short period of time." (Legal 500, 2020)
• "He combines a first-class brain, hard work and an easy-going outward manner." (Legal 500, 2019)
• "A shipping junior with experience in Singapore arbitrations." (Legal 500 Asia Pacific, 2019)
• "He presents very well and very appealingly to judges." (Chambers UK, 2019)
• "He has a fantastic eye for detail and drafting way beyond his experience." (Chambers UK, 2019)
• "A shipping junior with experience in Singapore arbitrations." (Legal 500 Asia Pacific, 2018)
• "The best shipping junior of his level of call. Hard-working, very bright, user-friendly and wise beyond his years." (Chambers UK, 2018)
• "A really helpful junior. Good on legal research." (Chambers UK, 2018)
• "He is a strong lawyer with a very practical, hands-on approach..." (Legal 500, 2017)
• "Popular in Singapore shipping cases...." (Legal 500 Asia Pacific, 2017)
• "A rising star..." (Legal 500, 2016)
• “Sharp, articulate and responsive.” (Legal 500, 2015)

Dry Shipping

Charterparty and cargo disputes form a substantial part of Henry’s practice. He has considerable experience of acting in all types of dispute arising under time charters, voyage charters and other contracts of carriage, usually under the LMAA Rules, but also under the SCMA and SIAC rules. The following are some notable and recent examples:

• LMAA Arbitration (June 2024) – acted as sole counsel for disponent owners in the middle of a three-handed unsafe port claim for c. USD 24m following a collision between a bulk carrier and its berth at Villa Constitution, Argentina. (5-day hearing against KC) 
• LMAA Arbitration (September 2023) – led by Chris Smith KC, acted for the ultimate sub-charterers of a bulk carrier successfully defending a c. USD 13m unsafe port claim following an anchor dragging incident off Boshnyakovo, Russia. (5-day hearing) 
• LMAA Arbitration (June 2023) – led by Michael Davey KC, acted for the successful claimant owners in their USD 7m unsafe port claim following a collision between a bulk carrier and a terminal loading appliance at Durban, South Africa. The port was held to be unsafe on account of pilot incompetence.  (4-day hearing)
• LMAA Arbitration (November 2022), acted as sole counsel for respondent time charterers of a chemical tanker succesfully defending a c. USD 3.5m claim for hire and expenses arising out the detention of the vessel by the Indonesian navy. (7-day hearing against KC and Junior)
• LMAA Arbitration (July 2022), led by Simon Rainey KC, acted for the claimant owners of a chemical tanker fleet against the respondent coating manufacturer in a US$28m claim based on allegations that the supplied coating was not fit for purpose. The matter was settled on favourable terms following a two-week hearing. 
• LMAA Arbitration (May 2022), led by Luke Parsons KC, acted for the successful claimant sellers of a Soviet era “supertrawler” seeking payment of the unpaid price of USD14m, overcoming allegations that the MOA was an unenforceable sham transaction. (4-day hearing) 
• LMAA Arbitration (March 2022), leading Ben Joseph resisting a VLCC seller’s claim for a c.USD2m deposit following the alleged non-acceptance of the vessel under an MOA during the extreme period of VLCC market volatility in the wake of COVID-19. (3-day hearing)
• Liwa Marine Services Limited v Grasim Industries Limited [2021] EWHC 3641 (QB), acted as sole counsel for disponent owners of the “Fazah 1” in their successful application for an interim anti-suit injunction in relation to proceedings brought in India in breach of an arbitration agreement incorporated into a carriage contract evidenced by a bill of lading. (1/2 day hearing against a KC)
• Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc v Aeturnum Energy International Pte Ltd (The “Navig8 Ametrine”) [2022] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 277, acted for successful claimant time charterers at trial in relation to a claim under a Letter of Indemnity for a mandatory injunction, award of damages and declaration of indemnity. (1-day trial in front of Christopher Hancock QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge).
• Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc v Aeturnum Energy International Pte Ltd (The “Navig8 Ametrine”) [2022] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 288: consequentials judgment in relation to costs and interest. 
• LMAA Arbitration (August 2021): acted for claimant disponent owners in their claim for a lien on sub-hire and sub-freights as well as a quantum meruit following the insolvency of their time charterers. The tribunal held that the liens were validly exercised. (1-day hearing)
• LMAA Arbitration (March 2021): led by John Russell KC, acting for the owners of a chemical tanker in a c. USD 3m cargo contamination claim arising out of an alleged failure to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy. (6-day hearing)
• SIAC Arbitration: instructed as sole counsel for the claimant shipowner in a US$13m claim under contract of affreightment for the carriage of steel pipe from Korea to the USA.
• LMAA Arbitrations (September 2017): acted as sole counsel in two arbitrations for claimant owners of two RO-PAX ferries in a balance of hire dispute (two consecutive 3-day hearings).
• LMAA Arbitration (May 2017): led by Simon Rainey QC, acted for the charterers of a diving support vessel in a three-handed dispute concerning oil contamination to the vessel's saturation diving system (hearing averted by late favourable settlement).
• Pan Oceanic Chartering Inc v Unipec UK Co Ltd & Anor [2017] 1 Lloyd's Rep. Plus 32, Henry (led by Charles Kimmins QC) acted for the claimant shipbrokers in this 11-day Commercial Court trial. The claim for damages, originally in excess of US$100m, was for lost brokerage commissions arising from the early termination by Unipec Asia of a long term contract of affreightment with Tankers International. POC claimed that the Unipec entities, part of the SINOPEC petrochemicals giant, were liable in conspiracy and interference with contractual relations under the law of New Jersey. The trial addressed interesting issues concerning the relationship between shipbrokers and their principals, as well as the proper approach to choice of law issues under the Rome Regulations.
• SIAC Arbitration: instructed as sole counsel for the claimant shipowner in a US$13m claim under contract of affreightment for the carriage of steel pipe from Korea to the USA.
• LMAA Arbitrations (September 2017): acted as sole counsel in two arbitrations for claimant owners of two RO-PAX ferries in a balance of hire dispute (two consecutive 3-day hearings).
• LMAA Arbitration (May 2017): led by Simon Rainey QC, acted for the charterers of a diving support vessel in a three-handed dispute concerning oil contamination to the vessel's saturation diving system (hearing averted by late favourable settlement).
• LMAA Arbitration (January 2015): acted as sole counsel for claimant owners in a successful claim for demurrage and damages for detention (1-day hearing).
• LMAA Arbitration (October 2014): acted as sole counsel for respondent charterers in a dispute regarding the application of the “CONWARTIME 2004” clause following an alleged threat to the vessel by Syrian Insurgents (1-day hearing).LMAA Arbitration (September 2014): acted for respondent ship owners to a US$3.5m claim for alleged misdelivery of coking coal (2-day hearing).
• LMAA Arbitration (October 2013): acted as sole counsel for claimant charterers in a misdelivery and underperformance claim (1-day hearing).
• LMAA Arbitration: acted for respondent owners resisting a US$7m claim relating to containers lost overboard in the South China Sea (issues of poor stowage).
• Acer UK Ltd & ors v Kuehne + Nagel NV & ors Claim No. 2011 Folio 1033: instructed as sole counsel by Associated British Ports to resist a £1m claim in the Commercial Court arising out of the theft of two containers of computers. The trial was averted by favourable settlement.
• Perseveranza SpA v Western Bulk Carriers, the “NEWLEAD MARKELA” Claim No. 2010 Folio 1172: acted for respondent owners in a Commercial Court trial regarding the settlement of a long-term time charterparty. The case concerned issues of rectification for common or unilateral mistake and trial was averted by a late favourable settlement.
• “THE WILDEBEEST” Claim No. 2010 Folio 1197: acted for the claimant disponent owners in a four-party US$2.5m collision and demurrage dispute in the Commercial Court.

Wet Shipping

Admiralty and Salvage

• Instructed by the owners of the MV EVER GIVEN to advise on international law and limitation issues following her grounding in the Suez Canal in 2021.
• Led by Nevil Phillips, acting for the owners of the LNG carrier “AL ORAIQ” in an Admiralty Court collision action with the owners of the MV “FLINTERSTAR”. The trial was averted by settlement.  
• Led by Luke Parsons KC, advising the owners of a cargo ship that was lost following a fire and explosion on board off the coast of India. 
• The Nordlake and The Sea Eagle [2016] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 656: the first collision action in the Admiralty Court for a number of years, led by Elziabeth Blackburn QC, Henry acted for the owners of the Nordlake in their claim for apportionment of liability for a collision with an Indian warship, the INS VINDHYAGHIRI.  The case decided a novel point of law: namely whether or not the court must take into account the degree of fault of a vessel that is not before the court in apportioning liability under section 187 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.
• LOF Arbitration (October 2015): instructed as sole counsel for respondent shipowners in LOF claim for a salvage award. The hearing was averted by a late settlement.
• The “BALTIC LEOPARD and the “PISTI” Claim No. 2013 Folio 169: led by Timothy Hill QC, acted for the respondent owners of the MV “PISTI” in a collision action in the Admiralty Court. The trial was averted by late settlement.
• Led by Elizabeth Blackburn QC, acted for the Owners of the MV “CORVUS J” in their jurisdiction challenge to the Limitation Fund established by the owners of the MV “BALTIC ACE” (car carrier lost after a collision) in the Isle of Man.
• MV “WESTWIND II” Claim No. 2011 Folio 1329: acted as sole counsel for the owners of a mussel and oyster farm in an application for the appraisement and sale pendente lite of the arrested vessel “WESTWIND II”, following its collision with the farm. Henry also appeared at the hearing of the determination of priorities.
• Acted for owners in a US$5.6 million claim against the managers of four VLCC vessels on the SHIPMAN 98 form.

General Average

• LMAA Arbitration (December 2015): led by Vasanti Selvaratnam QC, acted for ship owners in a claim for a US$3m contribution under a General Average adjustment from cargo interests

Henry has a broad Commodities & International Trade practice encompassing all aspects of disputes concerning hard and soft commodities. Since 2022, Henry has been instructed in several disputes concerning the effect of Russian sanctions on international sale contracts.  The following are some examples of Henry’s recent and ongoing work:

• LMAA Arbitration – led by Luke Parsons KC, acting for a Swiss coal trader, defending claims in excess of USD250m under five coal sale contracts for Russian thermal coal.  The dispute involves complex issues regarding the interplay between the EU, Swiss and UK Sanctions regimes and the contracts.  
• LCIA Arbitration – led by Luke Parsons KC, acting for a Swiss coal trader defending a USD 43m claim for alleged breach of a sale and purchase agreement for the supply of Russian thermal coal. The respondent contends it was excused performance by reason of the imposition of sanctions on Russia by the EU, Switzerland and the UK following the invasion of Ukraine.   
• LCIA Arbitration – led by Luke Parsons KC, acting for a Monegasque coal trader defending a USD 19m claim for alleged repudiation of a sale and purchase agreement for Russian thermal coal. The respondent contends it was excused performance by reason of the imposition of sanctions on Russia by the EU, Switzerland and the UK following the invasion of Ukraine.  
• Ad Hoc Arbitration – acting as sole counsel for a Singapore commodities firm in their USD 16m claim for non-acceptance under an aluminium supply contract with a Taiwanese counterparty.
• GAFTA Arbitration (Award issued April 2023) acted for successful claimant in their c. USD 3m claim under a contract for the sale of Ukrainian corn. 
• LCIA Arbitration (January 2022): appeared as sole counsel for the successful claimant buyers of Russian Crude Oil (REBCO) in a c.US$3m following the seller’s non-performance of a long-term sale contract. (4-day hearing against KC and junior)
• SIAC Arbitration (July 2019): led by Simon Rainey QC, acted for the claimant purchaser under a coal supply agreement in a US$6m coal quality dispute.
• BP Oil International Limited v Sahara Energy Resources (December 2018) – instructed as sole counsel for the defendant in this Commercial Court trial concerning alleged shortage issues under a crude oil sale contract. The trial was averted by a late settlement.
• SIAC Arbitration (March 2018): acted for the successful respondent “buyer” in a US$1m claim under a disputed palm oil sale contract (5-day hearing).
• LCIA Arbitration: (August 2017): led by Simon Rainey QC, acted for the successful respondent coal trader in US$4m dispute under a coal supply agreement against a claimant state power company.
• SIAC Arbitration: currently instructed as sole counsel for the claimant shipowner in a US$13m claim under contract of affreightment for the carriage of steel pipe from Korea to the USA.
• SIAC Arbitration: currently instructed as sole counsel for the claimant iron ore trader in a US$1.2m damages claim arising out of a disputed spot contract
• ICC Arbitration (January 2014) (Qatar seat): acted for claimants in a US$23 million claim under a bitumen supply agreement for the New Doha International Airport.
• SIAC Arbitration (July 2015): acted as sole counsel for respondent buyers, successfully resisting a US$2m claim under an iron ore sale contract involving allegations of force majeure due to extreme weather.
• SAPI SpA v Sunshine Oil: LMAA arbitration concerning 2 tallow sale contracts; Henry also appeared in the successful application for the Commercial Court to appoint an arbitrator under section 18 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

The following are some examples of Henry’s recent and ongoing Shipbuilding work:

•  LMAA Arbitrations (November 2024): , acting with Simon Croall KC and Jamie Hamblen for the respondent shipyard resisting claims of c. USD 900m in a dispute arising out of the cancellation of 10 newbuild container vessels due to alleged repudiation of the SBCs by the shipyard. (4-week liability hearing) 
• LMAA Arbitration (November 2023) – acted as sole counsel for claimant buyers of four MR product tankers in their claim for c. USD 20m due to alleged repudiation of the SBCs in a rising market. (4-day hearing against KC) 
• LMAA Arbitrations: led by Lionel Persey QC, acting for the respondent buyers of 2 x floating accommodation rigs (FAUs) resisting claims for c. US$57m and c. US$180m respectively from the claimant shipyards following cancellation of the EPC contracts.
• LMAA Arbitrations: led by Robert Bright QC, acting for the respondent buyers of 2 x 64,000mt bulk carriers resisting the shipyard’s claim for alleged wrongful termination, and seeking the return of instalments of the price under refund guarantees, following cancellation of the shipbuilding contracts due to alleged defects.
• LMAA Arbitration: led by Simon Rainey QC, acted for the buyer of a 106m, US$170m, mega yacht resisting the shipyard’s claim for alleged permissible delay during the construction period.
• LMAA Arbitration: led by Nigel Cooper QC, acted for the respondent shipyard in this c. US$18m dispute concerning the alleged defective construction of a super yacht.
• LMAA Arbitration: led by Timothy Hill QC, acted for the shipowner claimant in a claim for US$24m worth of instalments paid on two Kamsarmax vessels in late 2008.
• LMAA Arbitration: acted as part of a team (led by Timothy Hill QC) on twin shipbuilding arbitrations with a combined value of US$52 million.

The following are some examples of Henry’s recent and ongoing work in the fields of Energy/Offshore:

• HKIAC Arbitration: led by Simon Rainey QC, acting for an international commodities trader advancing substantial claims (c.US$800m) in relation to a failed metals mining JV with a Chinese State mining entity in the Republic of Congo. 
• ConocoPhillips Co v Chrysaor E&P Ltd (2020): led by Simon Rainey QC, acting for Chrysaor in its c. £100m Commercial Court dispute arising from the divestment of ConocoPhillips’ UK North Sea assets in 2019. The matter was averted by settlement on the first day of the trial. 
• Teesside Gas Transportation Ltd v CATS North Sea Ltd [2019] EWHC 1220 (Comm): led by Simon Rainey QC, acting for the claimant in this £50m dispute arising under a capacity reservation and transportation agreement for capacity in the North Sea CATS gas pipeline.
• LMAA Arbitrations: led by Lionel Persey QC, acting for the respondent buyers of 2 x floating accommodation rigs (FAUs) resisting claims for c. US$57m and c. US$180m respectively from the claimant shipyards following cancellation of the EPC contracts.
• LMAA Arbitration: led by Simon Rainey QC, acted for the disponent owners of a Diving Support Vessel (DSV) in this dispute concerning contamination of its saturation diving system during a deep sea well swap operation off the coast of Nigeria
• LMAA Arbitration: acting for the owners of an Offshore Support Vessel (OSV) in a US$18m dispute over early redelivery under the charterparty following a piracy incident off the Nigerian coast.

The following are some examples of Henry's recent and ongoing work in International Arbitration:

• LCIA Arbitration – led by Luke Parsons KC, acting for a Swiss coal trader defending a USD 43m claim for alleged breach of a sale and purchase agreement for the supply of Russian thermal coal. The respondent contends it was excused performance by reason of the imposition of sanctions on Russia by the EU, Switzerland and the UK following the invasion of Ukraine.   
• LCIA Arbitration – led by Luke Parsons KC, acting for a Monegasque coal trader defending a USD 19m claim for alleged repudiation of a sale and purchase agreement for Russian thermal coal. The respondent contends it was excused performance by reason of the imposition of sanctions on Russia by the EU, Switzerland and the UK following the invasion of Ukraine. 
• Ad Hoc Arbitration – acting as sole counsel for a Singapore commodities firm in their USD 16m claim for non-acceptance under an aluminium supply contract with a Taiwanese counterparty.
• HKIAC Arbitration: led by Simon Rainey QC, acting for an international commodities trader advancing substantial claims (c.US$800m) in relation to a failed metals mining JV with a Chinese State mining entity in the Republic of Congo. 
• LCIA Arbitration (January 2022): appeared as sole counsel for the successful claimant buyers of Russian Crude Oil (REBCO) in a c.US$3m following the seller’s non-performance of a long-term sale contract. (4-day hearing against KC and junior) 
• SIAC Arbitration (July 2019): led by Simon Rainey QC, acted for the claimant purchaser under a coal supply agreement in a US$6m coal quality dispute.
• ICC Arbitration (late 2018): acted for the Chinese claimant manufacturer of stationery in a USD2m claim against a UK-based buyer under a supply contract. The matter was averted by favourable settlement.
• SIAC Arbitration (March 2018): acted for the successful respondent “buyer” in a US$1m claim under a disputed palm oil sale contract (5-day hearing).
• LCIA Arbitration (August 2017): led by Simon Rainey QC, acted for the respondent coal trader in US$4m dispute under a coal supply agreement against a claimant state power company (4-day hearing).
• SIAC Arbitration: instructed as sole counsel for the claimant shipowner in a US$13m claim under contract of affreightment for the carriage of steel pipe from Korea to the USA.
• SIAC Arbitration: instructed as sole counsel for the claimant iron ore trader in a US$1.2m damages claim arising out of a disputed spot contract
• SIAC Arbitration (July 2015): acted as sole counsel for respondent buyers, successfully resisting a US$2m claim under an iron ore sale contract involving allegations of force majeure due to extreme weather.
• LCIA Arbitration (November 2015 & February 2016): Henry acted a sole counsel for the successful Russian “oligarch” claimant in this US$8m claim for damages arising out of the sale of a Russian bank to another “oligarch” respondent.  The arbitration involved a very substantial counterclaim involving alleged breaches of warranty and fraudulent misrepresentation.  Henry’s client made a very substantial recovery of damages, and the counterclaim was dismissed in its entirety (5-day and 2-day hearings respectively).
• ICC Arbitration (January 2014) (Qatar seat): acted for claimants in a US$23 million claim under a bitumen supply agreement for the New Doha International Airport.
• LCIA Arbitration: advised the sellers of an African Telecommunications company in a US$100 million dispute with the buyers.

• New Proton Bank S.A. & ors v Brit Insurance Limited & ors Claim No. 2011 Folio 1255: led by Timothy Hill QC, acted for the claimant owners of the MT “ELLI” in a US$40 million constructive total loss claim in the Commercial Court. The trial was averted by a late favourable settlement.

• Liwa Marine Services Limited v Grasim Industries Limited [2021] EWHC 3641 (QB), acted as sole counsel for disponent owners of the “Fazah 1” in their successful application for an interim anti-suit injunction in relation to proceedings brought in India in breach of an arbitration agreement incorporated into a carriage contract evidenced by a bill of lading. (1/2 day hearing against a KC)
• Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc v Aeturnum Energy International Pte Ltd (The “Navig8 Ametrine”) [2022] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 277, acted for successful claimant time charterers at trial in relation to a claim under a Letter of Indemnity for a mandatory injunction, award of damages and declaration of indemnity. (1-day trial in front of Christopher Hancock QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge).
• Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc v Aeturnum Energy International Pte Ltd (The “Navig8 Ametrine”) [2022] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 288: consequentials judgment in relation to costs and interest. 
• Teesside Gas Transportation Ltd v CATS North Sea Ltd [2019] EWHC 1220 (Comm): led by Simon Rainey QC, acting for the claimant in this £50m dispute arising under a capacity reservation and transportation agreement for capacity in the North Sea CATS gas pipeline. The case primarily concerned the construction of the CRTA, but also raised expert issues such as cost share allocation methodologies and the correct accounting categorisation of expenditure on the pipeline.  
• Pan Oceanic Chartering Inc v Unipec UK Co Ltd & Anor [2017] 1 Lloyd's Rep. Plus 32, Henry (led by Charles Kimmins QC) acted for the claimant shipbrokers in this 11-day Commercial Court trial.  The claim for damages, originally in excess of US$100m, was for lost brokerage commissions arising from the early termination by Unipec Asia of a long term contract of affreightment with Tankers International.  POC claimed that the Unipec entities, part of the SINOPEC petrochemicals giant, were liable in conspiracy and interference with contractual relations under the law of New Jersey. The trial addressed interesting issues concerning the relationship between shipbrokers and their principals, as well as the proper approach to choice of law issues under the Rome Regulations.
• The Nordlake and The Sea Eagle [2016] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 656: the first collision action in the Admiralty Court for a number of years, Henry acted for the owners of the Nordlake in their claim for apportionment of liability for a collision with an Indian warship, the INS VINDHYAGHIRI.  The case decided a novel point of law: namely whether or not the court must take into account the degree of fault of a vessel that is not before the court in apportioning liability under section 187 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.
• X v Y [2013] EWHC 1104, an application for security for costs and payment into court of c. US$3.8m pursuant to sections 70(6) and (7) of the Arbitration Act 1996.  The application for payment in was successfully resisted.
• Henry acted for the Second Defendant at first instance in BNP Paribas SA v OJSC Russian Machines & anr [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 61 (Blair J.) and [2012] EWHC 1023 (Teare J.), and then subsequently in the Court of Appeal in the conjoined appeals in Joint Stock Asset Management Company Ingosstrakh-Investments v BNP Paribas SA [2012] EWCA Civ 644.  The case concerned complex issues of service and jurisdiction, as well as interim anti-suit relief obtained by the claimant bank against the Russian-domiciled Second Defendant.