THE AUTHOR:
Aybek Akhmedov, International Lawyer & Arbitrator at Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC)
The High Court judgment [2025] EWHC 40 (Comm) in the case of Emma Louise Collins and others v. WEH delivered more than just legal clarity—it offered a masterclass in strategic defense, peppered with lessons in patience and procedural rigor. At its heart lies the Claimants’ attempt to convince the court that their procedural missteps were not just unfortunate accidents but rather the result of systemic irregularities. If their narrative is to be believed, every missed deadline, late filing, and failure to act was not their fault but rather an injustice shaped by an unfeeling arbitral process. Yet the Defendant, Wind Energy Holding Company Ltd, responded not with dramatics but with methodical precision, offering a strategy that turned the Claimants’ excuses into evidence of their own faults.
The case revolved around a Letter of Indemnity (“LoI)”, which the Claimants alleged was unfairly dismissed during arbitration. They argued that the arbitrator had failed in her duty to conduct the proceedings fairly, breaching Section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996. Adding a layer of melodrama to the proceedings, the Claimants pointed to a freezing order issued in related litigation as the key impediment to their ability to participate in the arbitration. This, they claimed, left them unable to present their case effectively. However, as the Defendant carefully demonstrated, the freezing order was not so much a barrier as it was an alibi, and a poorly constructed one at that.
The Defendant’s strategy was built on an unshakable foundation of procedural discipline, or what might be called immutability. They consistently emphasized that the arbitration process had been conducted fairly and within the bounds of established rules. The arbitrator had adhered strictly to procedural timelines, refusing to indulge unnecessary adjournments or entertain last-minute filings. By pointing to the arbitrator’s consistency, the Defendant effectively argued that fairness is not about bending the rules to accommodate one party’s disorganization but about maintaining a process that treats both parties equally.
The Claimants, however, seemed to view arbitration as a kind of open-mic night where improvisation was not just allowed but encouraged. Their attempts to introduce evidence at the last moment, coupled with repeated delays, painted a picture not of a party denied justice but of one unprepared to participate in it. The Defendant, in contrast, demonstrated what might be termed temporal mastery, using the Claimants’ delays against them. Each missed deadline became not just a procedural misstep but a symbol of the Claimants’ inability to manage their own case.
The freezing order, the centerpiece of the Claimants’ excuse, was handled by the Defendant with what can only be described as recalcitration—a calm yet firm redirection of blame. While the Claimants argued that the order prevented them from adequately preparing for arbitration, the Defendant pointed out that they had ample opportunity to seek variations or relief but failed to act. This argument neatly flipped the narrative, transforming the Claimants’ supposed victimhood into evidence of their own procedural negligence.
One of the more entertaining aspects of the case was the Claimants’ reliance on late evidence, as if the sheer volume of paperwork submitted at the eleventh hour might somehow compensate for their earlier inaction. The Defendant, however, displayed what could be termed evidentiary alchemy, turning this tactic into an argument for maintaining procedural integrity. By objecting to the admission of such evidence, they highlighted the importance of following established timelines and respecting the arbitrator’s authority. The court ultimately agreed, reinforcing the principle that deadlines are not optional suggestions.
Throughout the proceedings, the Defendant demonstrated apatheia, a stoic refusal to be drawn into the Claimants’ theatrics. While the Claimants presented their case with an air of urgency that might have been better suited to a soap opera, the Defendant remained calm and focused, addressing each argument with methodical precision. This composure not only strengthened their case but also underscored the contrast between their disciplined approach and the Claimants’ chaotic tactics.
A critical element of the Defendant’s strategy was their counterclaim, which served as a form of counterclaim anchoring. Rather than treating it as a secondary issue, the Defendant used the counterclaim to reinforce their engagement with the arbitration process. By consistently arguing its validity, they shifted the focus away from procedural complaints and toward the substantive merits of the case. This tactic not only bolstered their position but also highlighted the Claimants’ failure to address the underlying issues.
The judgment of Mr. Justice Henshaw was a fitting conclusion to this procedural drama. The court decisively rejected the Claimants’ allegations of procedural irregularity, finding that the arbitration process had been conducted fairly and impartially. The arbitrator, the court concluded, had acted well within her discretion, providing both parties with sufficient opportunities to present their case. The Claimants’ failures, the judgment implied, were not the result of any systemic unfairness but of their own choices and actions—or lack thereof.
The implications of this case are far-reaching, particularly for arbitration practitioners. It underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and timelines, not just as a matter of compliance but as a strategic advantage. The Defendant’s ability to turn the Claimants’ procedural failings into a narrative of disorganization and unpreparedness was a masterstroke, demonstrating the power of maintaining focus and discipline.
For practitioners, there are clear lessons to be drawn from this case.
- First, procedural discipline is not just a defensive tactic but an offensive one, capable of exposing the weaknesses in an opponent’s case.
- Second, the strategic use of counterclaims can anchor a defense, providing a substantive foundation that reinforces procedural arguments.
- Third, managing evidence effectively is critical; by objecting to late submissions, the Defendant not only upheld the integrity of the arbitration process but also demonstrated their own preparedness and adherence to the rules.
- Finally, the importance of composure cannot be overstated. The Defendant’s calm and methodical approach stood in stark contrast to the Claimants’ frantic and reactive tactics, further strengthening their case.
The case of Emma Louise Collins and others v. WEH is a testament to the enduring principles of fairness and procedural integrity in arbitration. It serves as a reminder that arbitration is not a stage for theatrics but a process that rewards preparation, discipline, and respect for the rules. For those navigating the complexities of arbitration, this judgment offers both a roadmap and a warning: success belongs to those who respect the process and master its art.
This case is a story of discipline triumphing over chaos. It is about a party that understood the importance of rules and a process that upheld them. Justice, as this case reminds us, is not about indulging every excuse or accommodating every misstep. It is about fairness, integrity, and, above all, a commitment to the principles that make arbitration a reliable and effective means of resolving disputes.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Aybek Akhmedov, LL.M. (UEA), is an international lawyer specializing in English contract law, private maritime law, sanctions law, and contract drafting. He is the founder of ELR, a leading resource on English law, and has extensive experience in international arbitration and commercial disputes. Aybek has advised global clients on complex legal strategies and regulatory compliance, particularly in the maritime and financial sectors. He also serves as an arbitrator in international disputes and is dedicated to legal education through his online initiatives.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
