CL-2025-000010 and CL-2025-000091 - [2025] EWHC 1842 (Comm)

It follows that the Directors are entitled to ASI relief in respect of the Greek Proceedings on the basis that they breach an obligation to be implied into clause 33 not to bring proceedings in a jurisdiction in which the clause 33 “no liability” provision would not be effective. WRL’s and the Directors’ alternative claims for ASI relief fail.

This conclusion rests the restraint of JPM’s claim against the Directors on that part of the SHA most directly and obviously concerned with claims by JPM against the Directors, which provisions the parties took care to ensure that the Directors would be able to enforce. Had those provisions not achieved the object for which WRL and the Directors contend in these proceedings, it is not, perhaps, particularly surprising that other provisions, less directly connected with these issues and in respect of which the Directors did not have first party rights, should not do so.

It only remains for me to thank both legal teams for an excellent example of very heavy and hard fought litigation, which has been brought on for argument under considerable pressure of time, and yet litigated in a constructive, professional and co-operative manner. It is to be hoped the parties can take inspiration from the approach adopted by their respective legal advisers.