On 10 March 2026, members of Keating Chambers, together with distinguished guest speakers, hosted an Energy Masterclass in London.
Through a series of keynote sessions and panel discussions, speakers shared practical insights drawn from their extensive experience at the forefront of major energy projects.
A summary of each session and the available slides can be found below:
Panel 1: Waste to Energy
Fionnuala McCredie KC opened the panel by exploring some of the legal and technical complexities of Energy from Waste ("EfW") projects, drawing on her extensive experience of disputes including, most recently, innovative food‑waste anaerobic digestion plants. She emphasised the inherent complexity of such matters, arising from the use of novel technologies with limited service history and the complexities of bespoke contractual provisions that may conflict with the parties’ original intent. Fionnuala identified that the key risks included the critical importance of feedstock compliance with design parameters, the pressure of strict subsidy deadlines and the significant influence exerted by third‑party funders on contractual relationships.
John Steel followed with a focus on absolute performance obligations, using the design life of a plant to illustrate this. He highlighted the distinction drawn by Lord Neuberger in MT Højgaard v E.On [2017] UKSC 59 between (i) a warranty that a structure will last for a specific duration and (ii) a requirement to provide a design capable of achieving that design life. John then looked at the commercial court decision in Toucan Energy v Wirsol Energy [2021] EWHC 895, which also addressed the distinction drawn in MT Højgaard. The distinction John focused on is a vital point to note for both contentious and non-contentious practitioners. The nature of the obligation determines what is required to establish breach. That in turn has a significant bearing on how parties must plead their case on design life and the expert evidence they require.
Mercy Milgo then discussed the types of defences commonly relied on by an EPC Contractor alleged to be in repudiatory breach in failing to deliver sub-contractor collateral warranties. Referencing a recent EfW arbitration, she discussed the circumstances in which the Purchaser may be found to have (1) affirmed the Contract and/or (2) expressed a common assumption that the Contractor was relieved of its obligation to procure the warranties. In doing so, Mercy highlighted (1) the difference between a continuing breach and a once-for-all breach in this context and (2) the high evidential threshold required to establish an estoppel by convention defence. She also noted that a Contractor's offer to provide financial support in the absence of collateral warranties and/or assume design responsibility for the sub-contracted works, may not be deemed equivalent to a third-party collateral warranty, which remains a key protection for Purchasers.
The panel concluded by underscoring the need for careful contractual drafting and risk allocation in Energy from Waste projects, particularly where new technologies, absolute obligations and third‑party interests combine to create heightened legal complexities.
Panellists: Fionnuala McCredie KC, John Steel and Mercy Milgo
Click here to view the slides from Panel 1
Industry Insight: Mike Williams, Chevron
Mike Williams, Vice President and General Counsel of Chevron Upstream International, shared a practitioner’s perspective on the energy industry’s long history and the strong requirement for stability amidst change. Drawing on over three decades of global experience, Mike reflected on an industry that is 185 years old yet shaped by modern pressures, including climate change litigation and the drive to commercialise renewables. He also highlighted the significant impact of disruptive global events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and very recent events in the Gulf, shutting down major capital projects and requiring years of recovery.
A central theme of the session was the industry’s extreme investment cycle. Projects can take decades from inception to first production, requiring billions in capital expenditure long before any revenue is generated. He flagged that such long-term commitments necessitate stable government and fiscal regimes, warning that uncertainty can create significant risks for operators.
Addressing the role of legal advisers in such projects, Mike emphasised the importance of counsel to act as "thought partners" who prioritise commercial outcomes. He urged counsel to focus on robust, practical arguments that can resolve issues before they escalate into highly complicated full-scale proceedings.
Overall, the session underscored that in a sector defined by decade‑long timelines, the greatest practical risks lie not just in technical challenges, but in volatile legal and political frameworks.
Panel 2: Marine Spreads
Veronique Buehrlen KC and Paul Buckingham KC examined the legal and technical complexities of marine spreads—the combination of specialist equipment, vessels and personnel essential for offshore energy and oil and gas projects. As marine spreads represent one of the most expensive elements of offshore works, with operational rates typically running into hundreds of thousands of pounds per day, the session focused on the significant risks associated with their mobilisation and operation.
A primary focus was the identification and specification of the vessel. Whilst contracts frequently identify a particular vessel, the inclusion of phrases such as “or similar vessel” can introduce substantial technical and legal uncertainty. To illustrate this, Paul considered the substitution of a stable jack-up vessel with a floating crane barge, a change that might have saved money but left the contractor without contractual relief for weather conditions that the originally specified vessel would have been capable of withstanding.
Veronique addressed the vexed question of delayed mobilisation, particularly regarding projects with narrow weather windows. She considered the use of negative covenants and priority clauses to prevent vessels from being diverted to separate projects. Whilst seeking an injunction to enforce these clauses is often complex, it can be an effective way of preventing a vessel owner from prioritising successor work. Where disputes do arise, the speakers noted that emergency arbitrators may provide a more practical route for such relief than the High Court.
The session further examined the omission of work, specifically the pitfalls of negative variations as seen in MT Højgaard v EON. This case served as a cautionary example of the provision of free-issue replacement vessels without clear mechanisms to transfer hire costs back to the contractor.
Finally, the panel provided practical guidance on payment structures, emphasising the need clearly to define when a spread is "engaged in the work" to avoid disputes over downtime during breakdown or maintenance. They also advised on the allocation of risk for provisional sum items such as, which can become a point of contention if consumed during periods of delay.
Overall, the session highlighted that successful marine operations depend upon clear vessel specification and robust contractual mechanisms to manage the extreme costs and logistical risks inherent in offshore work.
Panellists: Veronique Buehrlen KC and Paul Buckingham KC
Click here to view the slides from Panel 2
Panel 3: Permissible Delay
Lucy Garrett KC, Tom Owen KC, and Thomas Lazur examined the legal challenges of risk allocation for delay in major energy and offshore projects.
Tom Owen KC opened by examining risk allocation for onshore and offshore energy projects. The risk profiles can be quite different, and that is reflected in the standard forms. Whilst the value in the land of onshore assets tends to remain stable, offshore assets have greater exposure to market fluctuation. They can rapidly become liabilities if delivery is delayed. Unlike the standard forms for onshore projects (e.g. FIDIC and NEC), which contain broad and detailed terms for extension of time (EOT) including explicitly for prevention, that is often not the case with offshore contracts. The SAJ form adopts a tripartite categorisation of delay: permissible, non-permissible, and excluded delay events. This raises the question as to role and scope (if any) for the prevention principle.
Tom Lazur then addressed the prevention principle, a long-standing legal doctrine stating that a party cannot benefit from its own wrongdoing. In traditional construction, wide "catch-all" clauses are typically used to prevent time from becoming "at large", which would otherwise strip an employer of their right to liquidated damages. Tom noted a general reluctance for this principle in the shipbuilding industry, on the grounds that contractual terms should strictly override general common law principles. He highlighted a significant debate regarding the conventional view of time at large, suggesting that a full breakdown of contractual machinery may actually be based on a legal misinterpretation.
Lucy Garrett KC concluded with an analysis of three landmark cases that have shaped the interpretation of the SAJ Form: Adyard Abu Dhabi v SD Marine Services, Zhoushan v Golden Exquisite Inc and Jiangsu Guoxin Corp v Precious Shipping. In Adyard, the court applied a broad interpretation of permissible delay to avoid the “draconian” consequences of the contract machinery collapsing. This approach was notably challenged by the radical decision in the Golden Exquisite, where the court held that a buyer could terminate for delay even if their own supervisor had caused it. However, the more recent Jiangsu decision returned to a traditional position, ruling that buyer breaches should be caught by broad delay definitions to ensure the contract remains functional.
The session highlighted that whilst the prevention principle remains a point of contention, recent case law suggests a shift towards construing clauses widely to protect the validity of liquidated damages regimes and the functional integrity of offshore contracts.
Panellists: Lucy Garrett KC, Tom Owen KC and Thomas Lazur
Click here to view the slides from Panel 3
A View From the TCC: Mr Justice Constable
Mr Justice Constable, a Judge of the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) and former member of Keating Chambers, provided a comprehensive "View From the TCC", tracing the evolution to its current status as a pre-eminent global forum for complex energy and offshore engineering disputes.
He highlighted the court's long-standing ability to adapt to industrial shifts, from 19th-century railway litigation to modern renewables. A key focus was the TCC’s role as a pioneer in procedural innovation, including the development of Scott Schedules, early adoption of paperless trials and current work establishing protocols for the transparent use of AI in document disclosure.
Mr Justice Constable also emphasised the TCC’s key strategic advantages: the profound technical expertise of the specialist bench, the efficiency of managing document-heavy litigation and the ability to join all potentially liable parties in multi-party disputes. He concluded by asserting that as energy projects increase in technical complexity, the TCC remains uniquely equipped to meet these challenges, offering a forum defined by integrity and international reach.
