Sean advises and represents clients in a broad range of commercial and private international law disputes.
He has appeared in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court (particularly the Commercial Court). Sean has also been instructed to represent clients before all the major arbitral bodies (including the LMAA, GAFTA, FOSFA, ICC, LCIA, HKIAC, London Metal Exchange and Refined Sugar Association). In addition, Sean has acted as the legal adviser to the Refined Sugar Association and has provided evidence on English law for the purposes of proceedings in foreign courts.
In addition to trial work, Sean has extensive experience in interim proceedings, in particular obtaining freezing orders, inspection orders and anti-suit injunctions. He has also assisted in mediations.
Before joining Chambers, Sean worked for 11 years at Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd (the investment banking division of Deutsche Bank AG). He was an Associate Director, specialising in project and export finance, syndicated loan finance, and corporate and debt restructuring.
Since 2001, Sean Snook has been instructed by 180 firms of solicitors to act and/or advise in around 600 different disputes. Some examples of that work are set out below.
Privacy noticeShipping
- Zhoushanhai Shipping Corp. & Refined Success Limited v. Pacific Basin; VA Intertrading; & AOS Trading: for the claimant shipowners in their Commercial Court claim for damages and/or an indemnity arising out of the carriage and delivery of cargo against letters of indemnity.
- LMAA Arbitration: for the defendant owners in their defence to the claimant charterers’ claims for damages arising out of the owners’ alleged failure to exercise due diligence by reason of the damage and breakdown of the vessel’s hose handling crane leading to the termination of two consecutive charterparties. The cause of the breakdown was the subject of disputed witness and expert evidence with regard to crane maintenance, operation and repair.
- Ultrabulk (Asia) Pte. Ltd. v. Baumarine A/S: for the claimant charterers in a dispute which will require the Commercial Court to consider afresh the meaning of “deficiency of men” in the standard NYPE terms.
- ST Shipping and Transport Pte. Ltd. v. Valrose Marine Corp: for the defendant charterers in their defence to the claimant owners’ arbitral claims arising out of damage to the vessel’s main engine and subsequent breakdowns said to have been caused by the supply of off-spec bunkers; and for the charterers in their application to the Commercial Court for an extension of time in support of an intended application pursuant to s. 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996: [2026] EWHC 1176 (Comm.). The precise cause of the main engine problems was the subject of disputed expert evidence with regard to main engine maintenance, operation and repair.
- Cavalo Chartering N.V. Eusider SpA: for the claimant owners in their claim against the respondent charterers for damages arising out of the charterers’ repudiatory breach of charterparty; and for the owners in their successful application to the Commercial Court for permission to appeal the award on the question of mitigation and the correct quantification of damages.
- LMAA Arbitration: for the claimant owners in their claims against the respondent charterers for outstanding hire and their defence to the charterers’ counterclaims for damages for alleged breaches of the owners’ due diligence obligations arising out of the breakdown of the vessel’s main engine and boiler which was the subject of disputed expert evidence.
- LMAA Arbitration: for the respondent owners in their defence to the claimant bill of lading holder’s claims arising on alleged damage to cargo. Amongst other things, the tribunal was required to consider whether the claim fell foul of the rules on champerty.
- Spliethoff Transport B.V. v. Maersk Line Limited: for the claimant owners in their claim for the loss and damage to the vessel’s cranes arising on damage caused by stevedores in circumstances where the parties disputed which of them were the employers of the stevedores under the charter.
- Thorco Shipping A/S v. SQM S.A.: for the claimant charterer in its claim for the loss and damage arising from the failure of the defendant owners to load cargo.
- Cape Bonny v Ping an Property & Casualty Insurance [2017] EWHC 3036 (Comm.): for the defendant insurer in a dispute concerning the owner’s claim in General Average.
- Neon Shipping Inc. v (1) Foreign Economic & Technical Co-operation Co. of China & (2) Jinling Shipyard [2016] EWHC 399 (Comm.): for the defendant shipbuilders in a dispute concerning the nature and scope of the builder’s obligation to deliver the vessel fit for “normal worldwide service” and the impact of the contract’s limitation provisions on any claims made pursuant to that obligation.
- LMAA Arbitration: for the claimant owner in its claim for damages following late redelivery of the vessel by the respondent time charterer. The claim required the tribunal to determine whether the principles laid down in The Johnny [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 should be applied as a general rule to claims under time charters.
- Libyan Navigator Limited v Lamda Maritime Holdings/Standard Tankers LLC: for the sub-charterers in its application for interpleader relief arising out of an alleged claim by head owners to exercise a lien over freight due under the sub-charterparty.
- Lambert Navigation v RGL Group Ltd./ACE Insurance Limited: with Timothy Hill KC for the claimant shipowner in its claim for the payment of a general average contribution pursuant to an average bond and general average guarantee.
- LMAA Arbitration: for the respondent charterers in a claim arising out of damage to the vessel’s cranes where the main issues were as to the scope of the charterers’ duties in and about cargo operations, whether the master had a duty to intervene to prevent the damage and whether (by reference to expert evidence) the loss was in fact caused by “hidden damage”.
- London Arbitration: for the respondent buyers of a vessel in a dispute with the sellers concerning whether (by reference to expert evidence) the vessel was “in every respect physically ready for delivery” and/or “in substantially the same condition as when inspected” pursuant to the Norwegian Sale Form 1993 terms.
- LMAA Arbitration: for the disponent owner/charterer in the middle of a multi-charter dispute for whom the main issue was whether it was entitled to pass on claims down the line notwithstanding the insolvency of the party immediately below it in the chain.
- LCIA Arbitration: with Timothy Young KC for the defendant buyers in a dispute arising out of a series of shipbuilding contracts, the main issue being whether the parties had excluded the right to claim liquidated damages in the event of delay.
- London Arbitration: with Michael Coburn KC for the defendant shipbuilder in a dispute arising out of the manufacture and delivery of bulk carriers, in particular whether the seller was entitled to tender a substitute vessel following a delay in construction.
- LMAA Arbitration: with Christopher Hancock KC for the claimant owners in a multi-party dispute concerning a claim for hire, the scope of the implied indemnity under clause 8 of the NYPE form and liability for cargo damage and delay to the vessel.
- CSAV/Norasia v Hub Shipping: for the claimant carrier in a dispute arising out of the loss of a vessel.
- LMAA Arbitration: with Richard Lord KC for the defendant shipyard in claims arising out of alleged delayed delivery raising the scope of the prevention principle and extent of permissible delay allowed under such contracts.
- LMAA Arbitration: for the claimant owners in a dispute concerning the validity of claims against the third party guarantor of the charterer’s obligations.
- Monsoon v MOT Iraq; VOSCO v MOT Iraq: for the Iraqi Ministry of Trade in a series of claims arising out of the sale and delivery of rice into Iraq raising issues as to the scope of the Centrocon strike clause and the ambit of the sovereign immunity defence in claims against Iraqi government entities.
- FT Everard & Sons Limited v BP Marine Limited: with Christopher Hancock KC for the shipowner in a claim for damage to the vessel’s engine systems.
- Corus v STX Pan Ocean: for the claimant cargo owner in its claim for declaratory relief under bills of lading.
- Pimesa Trading Incorporated v Kintyre Limited: with Timothy Young KC in claims arising out of the sale of an oil rig.
- Kwacoli Shipping Ltd. v Delta Exports Pte Ltd: for the cargo sellers in a bill of lading claim raising issues of fraud, jurisdiction and the legality of an LOI.
- Stocznia v Latreefers: with Angus Glennie KC for the purchasers in a shipbuilding claim.
- Surzur v Koros & Others: for one of the defendants to a claim of tortious conspiracy arising out of a ship sale and purchase agreement.
International trade and commodities
- LCIA Arbitration no. 246282: for the claimant buyers in their claim for damages against the respondent sellers arising out of the alleged failure of the sellers to pay the freight due on the sale and delivery of a consignment of steel due for delivery in Turkey on CFR terms.
- Glencore Energy UK Limited v. (1) Lu & No AG; and (2) Powerfuel BV: for the defendant buyers in their defence to the claimant sellers’ claims for payments said to be due under the sale and purchase agreement for the sale and delivery of fuel oil; and for the defendant buyers in their counterclaim for damages arising on the sellers’ breach of disputed oral agreements and by reason of economic duress.
- IMTI v. Consortium 9744 at Lloyd’s: for the claimant in its claims for indemnities arising out of the sale and purchase of a Polish company engaged in the development, manufacture and sale of medical products.
- ICC Arbitration Ref. 24357: for the claimant buyers in their claim for damages against the sellers under a contract for the sale and installation of wind turbines in Turkey.
- RSA Arbitration no. 434: Acted as legal adviser to the tribunal in a dispute under a CNF contract in which the seller claimed damages for non-payment and the buyer alleged it had been relieved of any payment obligation by reason of the seller’s failure to comply with its documentary obligations and/or by reason of an estoppel by convention.
- London Arbitration: for the claimant buyers of silos and related equipment for the storage of cargo in Ukraine for the loss and damage arising on the sellers’ failure to supply complete or conforming silos, including their claims for loss of profit for lost future cargo sales.
- LCIA Arbitration No 163325: for the claimant buyers in a dispute arising on the sale and purchase of a cargo of steel billets. In addition to the market loss claims advanced, the tribunal had to consider whether or not the buyer had issued a conforming letter of credit.
- HKIAC/A17194: for the claimant buyers in a dispute arising out of a sale contract for the delivery of 360,000 mt of coking coal due to be delivered in four tranches, in which the claimant alleged that the respondent wrongfully failed to deliver the final three tranches, causing it to suffer losses of US$35 million.
- RSA Arbitration no. 408: for the claimant sellers in their claim to recover the net balance payable by the respondent buyers following a delivery of sugar which the buyers (wrongly) alleged had been contaminated by calcium phosphate.
- Trade Finance Partners Limited v Emporio Medical D.O.O, Valentis Pharmaceuticals GmbH, Gregor Jurkovic & Urska Jurkovic: for the claimant company in its Commercial Court claim for the balance of amounts due under a trade finance scheme operating in Slovenia. Claims were made against the original trade finance partner and the individual guarantors; in addition to the trade finance dispute, the claim raised complex conflict of laws issues.
- LCIA Arbitration no. 132533: for the respondent buyers in a dispute arising out of a CFR contract for the sale and purchase of iron.
- GAFTA Arbitration No. 14-165A: with Michael Coburn KC for the claimant sellers in their claim for sums due under various sales contracts for the delivery of rice to West Africa.
- AK Kablo v Intamex: for the claimant sellers in response to the buyers’ challenge to an LME award.
- LME Arbitration: for the claimant sellers in a dispute arising out of a CIF contract for the sale and delivery of copper.
- ED & F Man v Fluxo-Cane; Marex v Fluxo-Cane; Sucden v Fluxo-Cane: for the defendant Brazilian sugar trader in a series of claims arising out of sugar futures and options trading on ICE.
- LCIA Arbitration no. 81015: for the claimant buyers in claims arising out of the sale and purchase of chrome concentrates.
- LCIA Arbitration no. 91353: for the buyers in claims arising out of the sale and purchase of aluminium.
- RSA Arbitration: with Timothy Young KC for the claimant sellers in a claim arising out white sugar futures contracts traded on Euronext LIFFE.
- RSA Arbitration no. 298: with Andrew Baker KC for the sellers in a quality/condition claim arising out of the sale of Brazilian sugar.
Banking and derivatives
- Greensill Capital (UK) Limited v. Metalcorp Group S.A.: for the defendants in their defence to the claimant’s claims for outstanding payments said to be due under a complex web of trade financing agreements.
- Canada Square Operations v. Potter [2023] UKSC 41: for the defendant bank in the PPI mis-selling litigation.
- ISDA Master Agreement: for Merrill Lynch in the defence of claims made against it by SpB hf (an Icelandic bank) following termination of various swap agreements. In addition to disputes about the net balance payable on termination, the dispute involved questions of waiver and issues relating to the local insolvency law.
- Banking: advice to a litigation funder on the merits of a claim made by an investment fund for damages arising out of futures and options trading on the London Metal Exchange. In addition to claims in contract, the claimant alleged that the losses were the result of fraud and/or conspiracy on the part of the defendants.
- Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp. Ltd. V. ING Bank NV [2019] EWHC 676 (Comm.): for the claimant bank in its claim for breach of warranty under a sale and purchase agreement with the defendant bank.
- Lehman Brothers International (Europe) v (1) DZ Bank; (2) Bank of New York Mellon: for the claimant bank in its claim for sums payable on the termination of a Global Master Repurchase Agreement (“GMRA”) following the claimant’s entry into administration in 2008. In addition to the dispute as to the proper valuation of securities under this transaction, the claim against the second defendant raised issues as to the eligibility of certain of those securities under the GMRA and related collateral management agreements.
- Lehman Brothers Finance A.G. v Bank of Singapore Limited: for the defendant bank in a claim by the liquidator for the balance said to be due under a series of equity derivatives transactions made pursuant to an ISDA Master Agreement following the early termination of that agreement arising on the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
- MCS Holding Ltd. & Others v ABN Amro Bank N.V.: with David Owen KC for the defendant bank in proceedings before the Brussels Commercial Court in a dispute as to the validity of certain resolutions passed by the claimant hedge funds (as bondholders under the terms of a trust deed) purporting to postpone the date for conversion of Euro-denominated notes.
- Société Générale S.A. v Saad Trading, Contracting & Financial Services and Mr. Maan Al-Sanea: with Alexander Layton KC for the claimant bank in its claim for payment from its customer (and its guarantor) pursuant to certain letter of credit transactions. The claim raised issues of construction and application of the UCP 600 terms, expert evidence as to banking practice and whether the amounts were recoverable under an implied contract and/or in restitution.
- Deutsche Bank v Regione Lazio: for the defendant Italian municipality in a dispute as to the validity of certain interest rate swap transactions conducted pursuant to an ISDA swap.
- BNPP v Emcure: for the claimant bank in claims arising out of derivative transactions (foreign currency swaps and options) pursuant to an ISDA Master Agreement.
- OWB v Fortis: for the guarantor bank in a claim on a performance bond.
- Haugesund & Narvik Kommunes v DEPFA ACS Bank: with Iain Milligan KC for the Norwegian Kommunes in their claim for declaratory relief in respect of certain swap transactions made with the bank, raising issues of capacity, borrowing powers, restitution and the scope of the defence of change of position.
- LCIA Arbitration no. 3434: with Iain Milligan KC for a leading Wall Street investment bank in a claim involving allegations of professional negligence.
General commercial
- Webster & Others v. WPP Group (UK) Ltd. [2021] EWHC 2153 (Comm.): for the claimant sellers in their claim for the outstanding payments due under a sale and purchase agreement relating to the claimant’s proprietary technology platform for operation in the programmatic digital media marketplace involving the automated buying and selling of digital media.
- Tugushev v. Orlov and others: provided an opinion on certain matters of English law and practice for use by the defendant in related proceedings before the Murmansk court in Russia.
- High Court: for the applicants in their claim to set aside and/or vary an order requiring them to answer Letters of Request issued in the Swiss and Californian courts.
- Arbitration: with Alexander Layton KC for the claimant in its claim for the recovery of certain levy payments made to the respondent government pursuant to the claimant’s right to mine and export bauxite; and for declaratory relief in respect of the claimant’s rights under certain local bauxite and taxing statutes. The respondent government counterclaimed, alleging further levy payments were due. The value of the parties’ claims and counterclaims totalled approximately US$75 million.
- ICC Case No: 20272/TO: for the claimant in its C$38,000,000 claim against its former partners in a dispute concerning their joint venture company’s proposed development of an aluminium wheel plant in Trinidad and Tobago.
- London Arbitration: with Christopher Hancock KC for the insurers in a Bermuda form claim arbitration arising out of damage said to have been caused by the use of MTBE in the United States petrol industry.
- Goldington v Nemetona: for the claimant in its High Court claim for payment/damages pursuant to a settlement agreement arising out of a GAFTA arbitration. The claim raised an interesting issue as to the scope and ambit of the law on penalty clauses, in particular whether the claim, on the true construction of the instrument, fell within the rule laid down by the House of Lords in Thompson v Hudson (1869) 4 H.L. 1.
- Engine Developments Ltd. v Lotus Cars Limited: with Lawrence Akka KC for the defendant in a Commercial Court claim for debt/damages arising out of the delivery of high-performance racing car engines for use in the Indycar Racing Championship.
- LCIA Arbitration: for the respondent buyer in the seller’s claims for damages following the alleged failure of the buyer to open a conforming letter of credit in good time which was said to have led to delays in loading/discharging cargo. The dispute raised extremely unusual issues of causation and remoteness in that the damages claimed related to payments due under a separate contract which had only been entered into by the claimant sellers after the alleged breach of contract by the buyers.
- London Arbitration: with Philip Edey KC for one of the parties to a joint venture in a dispute arising out of the parties’ purchase of a portfolio of distressed debt. The parties had entered into a complex web of agreements and the issues included breach of warranty, alleged misrepresentation and whether the agreements had been validly terminated.
- ICC Arbitration/Commercial Court: with James Lewis KC for one of 12 defendants to a $2 billion claim in respect of disputes arising on the restructuring of a company and its financing arrangements. The underlying disputes were to be arbitrated but the High Court action dealt with a challenge to jurisdiction based on the domicile of the defendants pursuant to the Brussels Regulation.
- Arbitration No. 96/1998 of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce: with Nicholas Strauss KC and Duncan Matthews KC for the purchasing company in its claim arising out of pensions mis-selling and related matters.
- Hiscox v Ghiolman: for the insured in a jurisdiction dispute as to the application of Council Regulation no. 44/2001.
- LOV NB49 v Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance: With Michael Ashcroft KC for the claimants in their claim arising out of the loss of a yacht on its maiden voyage.
- Guerrero & Others v Monterrico Metals plc: for the claimant Peruvian miners in a claim for damages arising out of alleged mistreatment at a mine in Peru.
- ICC arbitration no. 12238/DK: for the Finnish-German consortium in a project financing dispute concerning the development of a thermal power station project in Russia.
- Wolman v Weller: for the owner of shares in a claim for breach of contract and/or trust.
- Allantone Supplies Ltd. v J. Boston & Sons (Shipping) Limited: for the company in an insolvency-related claim.
- Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v Addison & Others: with Murray Pickering KC for the licensees in their dispute with Esso over the terms of their licence agreements and obligations arising under the Tiger Token promotion.