Enyo Law advises on a wide range of disputes across energy and resources projects and transactions whether through the courts, international arbitration or commercial negotiation.

We have in-depth industry and sector insight with the effective and cost-efficient management of experts, witnesses and co-Counsel in the relevant commercial context, including the consideration of environmental, political and economic risk. 

Our experience spans all key areas of energy and resources disputes, including:

  • Investment disputes
  • Cross-border disputes and jurisdictional challenges
  • Construction, nuclear and renewable power generation
  • Disputes associated with upstream, midstream and downstream oil & gas
  • LNG and renewables
  • The impact of insolvency issues on industry participants
  • Environmental issues
  • Bribery and anti-corruption
Representative cases
  • Enercon, a leading wind energy company in India, in relation to a USD100 million multi-jurisdiction construction dispute. Enercon GmbH & Wobben Properties GmbH -v- Enercon (India) Limited [2012] EWHC 689, [2012] EWHC 3711, [2012] EWHC 3967, [2013] EWHC 335, [2014] EWHC 4049.
  • PETRONAS in its successful defence of a USD1.14 billion claim for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract arising out of the termination of its investment in a Brazilian off-shore oil project. PETRONAS was awarded USD15 million in costs. ICC, Rio de Janeiro seat.
  • An oil refinery in relation to its rights and obligations under a long term offtake agreement.
  • A major energy distributor in relation to an LNG project in Latin America.
  • Acting for the Defendant, Wirsol Energy, in a USD50 million dispute involving the construction of 19 solar parks in the United Kingdom. The case involved over 20 separate claims for alleged defects under the engineering contract and other claims, including the alleged misuse of public funds.
  • Representing a consortium of regional and international energy companies in an LCIA arbitration against a regional government in the Middle East in relation to the ownership and commercial operation of two petroleum fields, with a value of over USD39 billion.
  • Acting for a Kurdish oil refining company and its ultimate beneficial owner in English proceedings seeking a freezing injunction, tracing and civil recovery of assets following the commission of commercial fraud in connection with a proposed USD100 million financing facility.
  • Representing Leonid Lebedev against Leonid Blavatnik and Viktor Vekselberg in relation to disputes concerning Lebedev’s interest in the TNK-BP joint venture, which was acquired by Russian oil company Rosneft in 2013 for the reported sum of USD55 billion.
  • Representing a state-owned oil company in relation to the enforcement of an arbitral award, which was the subject of set aside proceedings commenced in the Malaysian Courts.
  • Acting on behalf of a state entity owned by the United States Government in three London Bermuda-form arbitrations worth in excess of USD250 million following an incident at one of the state entity’s fossil fuel power plants.
  • Acting for a construction company in its ICC arbitration with a major oil company over delays and additional costs in a project for the construction of an FPSO platform.
  • Successfully defending an investor in a company developing technology used for the stimulation of late life oil wells against claims he had diverted business opportunities said to be valued in excess of USD200 million. The claim involved litigation in the US as well as questions of Russian law. We were ultimately successful in demonstrating that the business opportunity was entirely worthless.
  • Representing Ascent Resources Plc, a UK energy company, in a potential investment treaty claim against Slovenia in relation to the development of a gas field.
  • Representing Strait Oil and Gas, a Gibraltar company, in an investment treaty claim against Georgia in relation to the termination of a PSC in relation to an oil field.
  • Advising one of the largest integrated energy companies in the US in a shareholder dispute regarding the development of a pipeline in the Middle East.
Dec 4, 2023
Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter –  Supreme Court provides clarity on limitation periods in fraud context  
Introduction Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides for the postponement of the limitation period in cases of fraud,...
Nov 29, 2023
Oliver Rule joins Enyo Law from Allen & Overy
We are delighted to welcome Oliver Rule, who joins the firm as a partner. Oliver has almost two decades of...
Nov 22, 2023
The wide remit of a section 423 Insolvency Act claim
It is well known that courts are extremely reluctant to “pierce the corporate veil” and disregard the fundamental principle of...
Nov 15, 2023
High Court reiterates need to prove reliance on implied misrepresentations
The High Court has dismissed claims against Credit Suisse relating to its sale of a collateralised debt obligation (“CDO”) “as...