Marcus Gordon

Marcus is the head of the Watson Farley & Williams Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group in Singapore. He specialises in heavy engineering disputes with a focus on oil and gas disputes, including in particular FPSO disputes (charters, conversion, construction and operation), oil rig operation and construction disputes, liquidated damages claims, delay and disruption claims, cost overrun claims, oilfield development disputes, heavy equipment failures and shipbuilding disputes. Marcus has also advised on numerous charterparty disputes.

Marcus's relevant experience includes advising:
Oil & Gas

Acting for an oil major in relation to US$billion+ claims relating to the construction and supply of an FPSO.
Acting for an oil company in arbitration proceedings relating to a dispute over the valuation of reserves in the oil field.
Acting for a contractor supplying topside modules for installation on an FPSO. This matter went to arbitration, where the contractor defeated the claims made against it and succeeded in its claims for damages and costs. An important part of this case turned on the contractor's successfully defeating a multi-million dollar liquidated damages claim by arguing that the liquidated damages provisions were penal in nature.
Representing an FPSO owner in proceedings where the oil company purported to terminate the charter.
Representing the purchaser of an interest in an oil field where the purchaser successfully negotiating the termination of the agreement such that it was no longer bound to purchase the interest.
Representing an oil company in disputes with a host government in relation to the development of an oil field. The dispute related, among other things, the interpretation and application of the PSC, several treaties and UNCLOS.
Acting for the owner of an FPSO chartered to a bareboat charterer on the BARECON 89 standard. The dispute related to the allegedly poor condition of the FPSO on redelivery of the FPSO.
Acting for the owner of an FPSO chartered to a bareboat charterer on the BARECON 2001 standard. The dispute related to various aspects of the performance of the vessel, including, speed and consumption, the condition of the FPSO on delivery, and whether terms requiring rectification of punch-list items had been properly complied with.
Representing an oil field developer in relation to a dispute under a rig. The main issues in dispute related to the cause of damage allegedly sustained to the rig while in the field and who bore liability for that damage.
Acting for an oil field operator in arbitration proceedings relating to the provision of a defective FPSO (including the mooring and riser system). The main issues in dispute relate to: (i) the causes of the repeated malfunctioning of the FPSO's "disconnectable" mooring system; (ii) the FPSO’s inadequate DP station keeping system; and (iii) negligent operation of the FPSO resulting in damage and downtime. The inability of the FPSO to disconnect and reconnect as intended led to repeated and prolonged periods of lost production. The contractor has alleged that the downtime occurred due to force majeure events. The operator disputes this and has commenced arbitration proceedings against the contractor. The amount in dispute was US$140m.
Representing the oil field developer in a dispute relating to a defective FPSO. The main problems with the FPSO were its poorly designed turret mooring system, leaking swivels and inadequate process modules leading to shortfalls in production and off-specification hydrocarbons. The amount in dispute was US$1bn.
Acting for the oilfield developer in relation to a dispute arising out of the defective design and operation of an FPSO and classification issues.
Representing a subcontractor in a dispute with an FPSO owner/operator' relating to the supply and installation of gas compression topside processing modules on an FPSO intended for operations offshore Brazil. This matter went to arbitration, but before the hearing WFW successfully negotiated the withdrawal of the FPSO owner's US$4m claims and obtained payment of US$10m for the client.
Acting for the owner of an FPSO against a yard in Singapore in connection with the yard's threatened refusal to redeliver the FPSO pending payment of disputed VORs. Securing the release of the FPSO and advising on builder's liens, rights of arrest and the owner's right to set off liquidated damages against claims made by the yard. Advising the owner in connection with delay and disruption and misrepresentation claims.
Acting for the part-owner of an FPSO in a dispute with its joint venture partner relating to costs of refit works that were not pre-agreed prior to the works being undertaken.
Acting for the part-owner of an FPSO against its joint venture partner following the wrongful sale of the asset without the agreement of the part-owner.
Representing a publically listed oil field developer in a dispute with a yard in Thailand relating to the supply of a wellhead platform for operations offshore Thailand. The yard was claiming over US$5m in respect of 54 variation order requests. The developer counterclaimed US$1.5m in liquidated damages for delay and WFW successfully achieved a forced settlement in relation to this matter. The client's CEO described the performance of the legal team as being "above and beyond the call of duty", and the outcome as "a surprising and excellent result".
Advising the same publically listed company in relation to a dispute with the owner/operator of a FPSO under the charterparty. The main issue in dispute was when Mechanical Completion of the FPSO was achieved and, correspondingly, when the Services Day Rate started to accrue. Also advising the field operator on the FPSO's failure to comply with contractual performance specifications.
Acting for the contractor in connection with claims/issues arising out of a contract for the provision of topside gas compression modules on a full EPC basis for subsequent installation on a FPSO. The contractor claimed milestone payments together with variations. The buyer is counterclaiming for liquidated damages and various back charges.
Advising an owner/operator of FPSOs in relation to two multi-million dollar FPSO construction disputes with a Chinese yard. The disputes concern alleged outstanding milestone and other payments due from the owner and counterclaims for delay, liquidated damages, quality, etc under the construction contracts. Multiple proceedings were filed with the Singapore High Court, which WFW successfully stayed in favour of arbitration proceedings in London. The amounts in dispute are US$15 and US$60m respectively.
Acting for Global Process Systems Inc in litigation in the Commercial Court (London) against Tablelands Development Ltd (part of the Tanker Pacific Group) in a dispute relating to the supply of five topside processing modules for installation on FPSO "Raroa" operating in the Maari field offshore New Zealand.
Representing the sub-contractor against an FPSO owner/operator in rapid adjudication proceedings arising out of the fabrication and installation of five topside processing modules for installation on an FPSO for operations in the North Sea shelf. WFW assisted the sub-contractor to secure the release of the process modules and final documentation that were being withheld by the yard pending satisfaction of demands for payment. Successfully resisting all the yard's claims for payment in the rapid adjudication proceedings.
Representing the charterer of a vessel under the SUPPLYTIME 89 standard form. The vessel was chartered to undertake seismic surveys. The main issues in dispute related to allegedly inadequate speed of the vessel, class issues, and the condition of the vessel generally.
Representing a publically listed oil field developer in an ICC arbitration relating to disputes arising out of a production sharing contract, a joint operating agreement, two farmout agreements and a parent company guarantee. The main issues in dispute relate to late payments allegedly due in respect of cash- calls and other outstanding sums. This matter proceeded to a full trial and the developer was awarded 99.9% of its claims and 100% of its legal costs (which the Tribunal noted as being reasonable).
Acting for Global Process Systems Inc (GPS), the Dubai-based owner/operator of a jack-up rig due to be converted into a MOPU in connection with its claims against the carriers, surveyors, warranty surveyors and underwriters following bad weather damage that caused its legs to be lost at sea while being towed from the USA to Malaysia. GPS was successful in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords), where the court ordered: (a) judgment in favour of GPS in the sum of US$8m; (b) US$3m interest; (c) costs on an indemnity basis; and (d) interest at 10.50% (reported as Global Process Systems Inc and another (Respondents) v Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Berhad (Appellant) [2011] UKSC 5).
Advising the owner of a rig, and the lenders, in connection with an investigation into the cause of the total loss of the rig for the purposes of best protecting rights under insurance contracts.
Acting for a yard in arbitration proceedings relating to the allegedly defective construction and operation of an oil rig.
Advising a rig owner/operator in connection with claims under a rig charter.
Acting for a joint venture partner in connection with a dispute regarding ie defective construction of an oil & gas storage terminal.
Acting for the purchaser in a dispute relating to the defective construction of two LNG carriers. Effectively forcing the yard to remove and replace defective components (at its own cost) and to accelerate the construction programme to achieve as early a delivery as possible and pay liquidated damages. In relation to the same projects, advising the owner of the two LNG carriers in relation to claims under the charterparties.
Advising the buyer in a dispute relating to the construction of an ultra deep water drill rig. Assisting the buyer in negotiating revised terms with the yard.
Advising a supplier and off-taker of petrochemicals in relation to an outage at a petrochemical refinery caused by the breakdown of a power production facility. The main issue related to whether the farm operator was entitled to assert that the outage was an event offeree majeure.

Back