Summary

The operator of the Nord Stream pipeline was suing insurance companies for damages caused to the pipelines by explosions which rendered them inoperable. The Defendant insurance companies asserted that the claim for damage was excluded under the policies. Judge found the evidence of one of the geopolitical experts unsatisfactory because he appeared at times to be seeking to support the Claimant’s case by advancing arguments that flew in the face of common sense and the inferences to be drawn from the known facts.

Learning points

• You must not advocate for your client.

• You are likely to lose credibility with the Court if you appear to be making arguments that fly in the face of common sense or the inferences to be drawn from known facts.

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login