Bird & Bird secures important judgment for Destin Trading Inc in The High Court

International law firm Bird & Bird acted for the successful party in Destin Trading Inc v Saipem SA [2025] EWHC 668 (Ch).  Saipem claimed that an English action should be stayed under s9 Arbitration Act 1996 because the settlement agreement had an inconsistent dispute resolution clause to the prior agreements which it was terminating/settling.  The settlement agreement had an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English Courts whereas the prior agreements had ICC arbitration.  The action relates to a claim by Destin to set aside the settlement agreement for fraudulent misrepresentation and claiming certain monies that it would have earned under the prior agreements.  Saipem claimed that the monetary claims arose out of the prior agreements such that the arbitration clauses therein should apply.  

The Court refused the stay, confirming the principle that a dispute resolution clause in a subsequent settlement agreement will generally supersede an earlier dispute resolution clause.  Andrew Lenon KC, sitting as a High Court judge, said that there is  “clear authority for the proposition that dispute resolution clauses in a settlement or termination agreement should generally be construed on the basis that they are intended to have a superseding or overriding effect”; and (at [40]) that, even if the court applied a two-stage test as Saipem proposed, the application would still fail at the first stage (identifying the substance of the dispute between the parties) because in substance the “legal source” of the monetary relief claims was the settlement and the general law of deceit, not the prior agreements.

The core team at Bird & Bird advising Destin included partners Sophie Eyre, Federico Valle and associate Harry Arnold.