As a lawyer who practises in ship arrest and admiralty matters, I look at the current crisis involving Iran, the disruption to the Strait of Hormuz and soaring oil prices through a slightly different lens from most commentators. Important though the geopolitical and military dimensions plainly are, my immediate instinct is to consider the commercial consequences for shipowners, operators, charterers, suppliers, lenders and insurers. In shipping, geopolitical shock rarely stays geopolitical for long. It very quickly turns into cash-flow strain, delayed payments, contested liabilities and, in some cases, urgent applications to arrest ships.

That is particularly true where the shock affects energy flows. The present conflict has severely disrupted traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which roughly a fifth of global oil and LNG normally passes, while Brent crude has moved above $100 a barrel. Refined fuel markets have also tightened, with diesel and bunker costs coming under particular pressure, and major operators such as Maersk have responded by introducing emergency bunker surcharges.

History teaches that sea power is often as much about threat as about actual destruction. One of the enduring lessons of naval warfare is that a credible threat to a chokepoint can have market consequences out of all proportion to the number of ships actually attacked. That is one of the clearest features of the present situation. Even where capability is uncertain or uneven, the mere prospect of drones, missiles, mines, rising war-risk premiums and the absence of secure escort arrangements is enough to force owners, charterers and underwriters to reprice risk immediately.

From the perspective of a ship arrest lawyer, this is relevant because these added costs do not fall evenly across the market. Stronger operators may absorb them. Weaker or more thinly capitalised players may not. When bunker costs rise sharply, war-risk insurance becomes materially more expensive, schedules are disrupted and freight economics deteriorate, the legal fallout tends to appear in familiar forms,  unpaid bunkers, unpaid port charges, unpaid hire, unpaid necessaries, crew claims, disputes with mortgagees and increasing pressure from creditors who no longer trust promises of payment tomorrow. In a stressed market, ship arrest ceases to be a technical procedural device and becomes what it has always really been, one of the most effective ways of obtaining security when the risk of non-payment is no longer theoretical.

All of this brings Gibraltar firmly into the picture. Gibraltar’s location at the gateway to the Mediterranean has always given it strategic maritime importance, but in times of shipping stress that geography becomes commercially and legally significant. The Port of Gibraltar is the largest bunkering port in the Mediterranean, and it sits on one of the busiest maritime corridors in the world, with more than 100,000 vessels transiting the Strait of Gibraltar annually. It is exactly the sort of jurisdiction in which the consequences of upstream disruption in the Gulf may begin to show themselves through defaults, claims and security actions against vessels calling to bunker, change crew or await orders.

In my view, Gibraltar has very real advantages as a ship arrest jurisdiction. One of its principal strengths is speed. If full instructions and supporting documents are available and the writ and affidavit are in order, an arrest can in practice be effected within hours. The Admiralty Marshal is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, so in urgent cases an arrest can be carried out at any time. That is no small advantage in a port where vessel calls are often short and commercially driven. Gibraltar is also commercially pragmatic from the owner’s perspective: once satisfactory security is provided, often by way of a P&I Club letter of undertaking or a first-class bank guarantee, release can usually be obtained very quickly.

Another practical advantage is that admiralty matters in Gibraltar are treated with priority by the Supreme Court. In a volatile market, creditors do not just want theoretical rights, they want a forum in which those rights can be exercised swiftly and effectively. Equally, owners and clubs want to know that if security is offered, release can be arranged without unnecessary delay. Gibraltar’s arrest jurisdiction works because it recognises both sides of that commercial reality.

None of this is to suggest that every shipping company calling at Gibraltar is about to default, or that every period of market stress will produce a wave of arrests. But if the present Iran crisis continues to keep oil prices elevated, insurance costs high and trading conditions unstable, I would expect an increase in payment pressure across parts of the shipping market. And where payment pressure rises, ship arrests tend to follow. For maritime creditors, lenders, bunker suppliers and others exposed to shipping counterparties, Gibraltar may prove to be one of the most effective points in the Mediterranean at which to convert concern into security.

Christian is a Partner at ISOLAS LLP, the oldest and one of the largest law firms in Gibraltar. He is acknowledged as one of the leading lawyers in Gibraltar in the fields of admiralty and shipping law.

He has been named as a leading individual  by Chambers and Partners, the European Legal 500 and Global Counsel 3000, amongst others. Among others he represents major banks, the International Transport Workers’ Federation, P&I Clubs, bunker suppliers and shipowners.

“He is noted for expertise in non-contentious and disputes work in the admiralty area.” CHAMBERS & PARTNERS

“Hernandez is well known for his expertise in ship arrest and has a strong track record for his handling of shipping cases.” THE LEGAL 500

“Clients describe Christian Hernandez as “brilliant in shipping law and large commercial transactions,” adding: “He’s a commercial lawyer and is pragmatic in his advice.” CHAMBERS & PARTNERS

“ISOLAS remains a leading player in the shipping sector under the leadership of Christian Hernandez. His practice counts ship owners, banks, P&I clubs, and International Transport Workers’ federation among his clients.” THE LEGAL 500

For more information or for any enquiries, please don’t hesitate to contact Christian on christian.hernandez@isolas.gi

 

ISOLAS LLP Partner, Christian Caetano, has contributed the 2026 Gibraltar Insurance Chapter on the Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence platform. The updated Gibraltar Chapter reviews the most recent regulatory and legislative developments affecting Gibraltar’s insurance and wider financial services sector. In particular, it considers the ongoing progress made on the Gibraltar Authorisation Regime (GAR), which will govern market access arrangements for Gibraltar-based insurers and other regulated firms to operate in the United Kingdom, once fully implemented. In addition, the Chapter outlines key regulatory requirements applicable to prospective insurers seeking authorisation from the Gibraltar Financial Services Commission (GFSC), including licensing procedures, applicable regulatory fees and capital requirements.

Commenting on the publication, Christian said:

“I am delighted to have again been invited to contribute the Gibraltar Insurance Chapter for the Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence Insurance Guide. This Guide will be a helpful tool for those prospective applicants interested in learning more about Gibraltar or as a point of reference for existing stakeholders. Gibraltar’s insurance sector continues to demonstrate strong growth and resilience despite facing several sector-specific challenges, as well as those of a macro-economic and geopolitical nature. Industry reports continue to estimate that more than 35% of all UK motor insurance premiums are underwritten by Gibraltar-based insurers, with total gross written premiums reportedly exceeding £7 billion.

We are also pleased to continue supporting clients on corporate and commercial transactions across the sector, including on Part 23 insurance business transfers, as well as reorganisations, mergers and acquisitions involving both underwriters and intermediaries. Gibraltar’s speed to market, robust regulatory framework and unique market access arrangements with the United Kingdom continue to position the jurisdiction as a highly attractive location for insurance businesses.”

Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence guides provide exclusive news, analysis, and practical guidance from a global team of regulatory compliance experts and journalists. The guide is available for subscribers only but Christian may be reached directly on christian.caetano@isolas.gi.

This recognition by Chambers and Partners in their General Business Law rankings reaffirms our longstanding market leadership and depth of expertise across key practice areas, including Corporate/Commercial, Financial Services, Dispute Resolution, Gaming, and Shipping.

ISOLAS also counts on a number of highly ranked leading individuals in all sectors, and this year, one notable individual achievement is that of The Hon Neil Costa who has risen in short time to Band 2 in Dispute Resolution, reflecting his growing influence, client confidence, and consistent delivery on high‑value, complex matters.

Of the Firm, Chambers Review states “ISOLAS enjoys a longstanding reputation as one of the top full-service law firms in the Gibraltar market. It covers a wide remit of legal areas, ranging from finance and corporate transactions to licensing and insurance matters. Its lawyers frequently advise clients from both the public and private sectors. The firm possesses expertise in large real estate development projects and regularly advises on financial regulatory issues, including those related to cryptocurrencies, as well as on gaming matters. Additionally, ISOLAS operates a successful disputes practice, covering various litigation matters with a strong focus on employment and property disputes. The firm further assists with shipping mandates, such as ship arrests.”

Senior Partner The Hon Albert Isola CBE said “We are incredibly proud of our Team who, year after year, maintain our Band 1 ranking. Their commitment to our clients is exemplary and I am delighted by this recognition. Congratulations to all.”

ISOLAS Partners Adrian Pilcher, Emma Lejeune and Stuart Dalmedo have once again contributed to the Private Client Guide for Gibraltar, published by the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG).

The guide brings together expert commentary from legal practitioners across 24 jurisdictions, addressing key private client issues including taxation, succession planning and immigration.

The Gibraltar chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the jurisdiction’s private client framework, covering pre-entry tax planning, connection factors, taxation of inward investment, succession planning, trusts and foundations, immigration matters and tax treaties.

Gibraltar continues to offer an attractive tax environment, with no inheritance, capital gains, estate, gift or wealth taxes. For those relocating to Gibraltar, specialist regimes such as Category 2 and HEPSS status offer capped tax exposure and a clear, predictable tax outcome.

The guide also provides clarity on taxable sources of income and the treatment of inward investment, reinforcing Gibraltar’s reputation as a transparent, efficient and well-regulated international finance centre.

Read the Gibraltar chapter: Private Client Laws and Regulations Report 2026 Gibraltar

ISOLAS LLP has achieved a significant judgment on behalf of its client, Mansion (Gibraltar) Limited and Onisac Limited in the ongoing proceedings against Mansion’s former CEO Karel Christian Manasco. On Wednesday 21 January 2026, the Supreme Court of Gibraltar awarded Mansion Gibraltar damages in the sum of £1.7 million in respect of various claims after having struck out Mr Manasco’s Defence and Counterclaim. This builds on the €2.3 million already awarded to Mansion Gibraltar by the Supreme Court in September 2024.

To date Mr Manasco has been ordered to repay Mansion Gibraltar over £3.5 million as well as over £500,000 in costs.

Mansion (Gibraltar) Limited and Onisac Limited have throughout the proceedings been represented by Partner James Montado and Senior Associate James Castle. James Castle appeared as Counsel with Associate Anna Hernandez at the Summary Judgment and Strike out application.

ISOLAS are delighted to welcome Anna Hernandez to their team as an Associate.

Anna began her training with ISOLAS in September 2024, completing seats in Litigation, Commercial Law and Private Client. After completing her training, she was admitted as a Barrister of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar. She has become an important and valued member of the team in the short time she has been with the firm.

She graduated from Leeds Beckett University with First Class Honours in 2022 and completed the Bar Practice Course at The University of Law in 2023 and later completed the Gibraltar Professional Skills Course and the Professional Certificate of Competence in Gibraltar Law at the University of Gibraltar.

Anna works alongside Partner Christian Hernandez in commercial law with a focus on corporate finance, and with Partner James Montado in the litigation team.

Senior Partner The Hon Albert Isola CBE said: “Anna has sailed through her studies and training and is showing enormous potential. She has consistently demonstrated a level of commitment and determination that is important to a career in this profession. We are delighted to have her join our team and look forward to supporting her progression through the firm.”

Anna added: “I am excited to begin my legal career at ISOLAS LLP. The firm has always provided valuable guidance and support throughout my training, and I am grateful for the opportunities I have received. I look forward to continuing my work at the firm and contributing to the team.”

ISOLAS LLP Partner, the Hon. Neil Costa, defended Mr Ahmed Farissi against a charge of strangulation in a 5-day criminal trial in the Supreme Court of Gibraltar between 5 and 9 January 2026.

Neil was assisted by Associate Danielle Erica Curtis BL, Trainee Barrister Solomon Kench and Paralegal Michael Opala, throughout proceedings. What initially appeared to be a case of one person’s word against another turned into a multi-layered criminal trial following the Crown’s introduction of additional contextual evidence. In cross-examination, Neil was able to expose several evidential inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence. Most notably, at one point during his cross-examination of the complainant, Neil was able to elicit a response on an important issue in which the complainant admitted to giving evidence under oath that may have been false. This adroit ability to cross-examine the witness was likely crucial in the case. It is said that the cross-examination ‘likely’ proved crucial as jury deliberations are secret. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty.

ISOLAS LLP Partner, the Hon. Neil F Costa, acted for the Royal Gibraltar Police (the ‘RGP’), as one of the interested persons, in the Coroner’s Inquest into the deaths at sea of Mohamed Abdeslam Ahmed and Mustafa Dris Mohamed, which took place between Monday 1 and Friday 19 December 2025 (the ‘Inquest’). The Inquest was concerned with establishing the facts surrounding the deaths of the two men following a collision at sea with an RGP interceptor vessel. HM Deputy Coroner (the ‘Coroner’) empanelled a jury to hear the evidence and arrive at a verdict.

The four principal statutory questions the Inquest examined were: who the deceased were and how, when, and where the deceased came by their deaths. The Coroner ruled that the Inquest would additionally consider the broader circumstances as to how the deceased came by their deaths. An inquest that examines the wider circumstances of a person’s death when state actors are involved is described as an Article 2 inquest referring to the protection of the right to life enshrined in article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights. At the start of proceedings, the Coroner directed the Inquest jury to consider: (a) the adequacy of the RGP’s training of its maritime officers; (b) the adequacy of the RGP’s standard operating instructions to its Marine Section; (c) the conduct of the former RGP officers during the pursuit; and (d) the conduct of the said officers following the collision at sea.

Neil represented the RGP as senior Counsel throughout the Inquest, assisted by ISOLAS LLP Associate, Ms Louise Anne Turnock, which heard evidence and legal submissions for almost three weeks. Neil extensively and meticulously examined different witnesses, thoroughly testing the evidence in light of the principal statutory, and broader, questions that the jury had been tasked to assess. Given the evidence, Neil successfully advanced, in legal submissions, that the two expressly articulated questions relating to the RGP should be removed from the list of issues that the Inquest jury should answer. Neil submitted that the preponderance of evidence meant that there could be no doubt that the RGP’s training and standard operating instructions to its maritime officers was adequate.

Upon applications brought by both Counsel for the former RGP officers involved in the fatal collision at sea, and supported in submissions by Neil, the Coroner decided to remove the verdict of unlawful killing from the jury; again, based on the evidence heard in Court. Following the removal of the unlawful killing conclusion, the jury were directed to enter verdicts of accidental deaths, which the jury entered along with a narrative as to the broader circumstances leading to the fatalities as well as a separate rider of recommendations. Inter alia, the jury found that the former RGP officer piloting the RGP vessel had acted in accordance with the RGP’s training and was not at fault for the collision itself. Other than on the discrete questions on the use of navigational equipment on vessels and refresher coxswain training taking place every few years (as opposed to the presently mandated 5 years), the jury did not make any other recommendations as to the training of the RGP maritime officers nor as to the RGP standard operating procedures to its Marine Section.

Subject to a judicial review by the families of the deceased, the verdict of this Inquest should mark the end of a long and complex set of proceedings that have spanned over five years and in respect of which Neil has represented the RGP throughout.

ISOLAS is delighted that it has once again been ranked “Band 1” in the Chambers FinTech 2026 guide, reaffirming the firm’s position as one of Gibraltar’s leading advisers in digital assets, regulatory matters and financial innovation. ISOLAS has been at the forefront of Gibraltar’s development in this area and continues to excel in the provision of these services.

Head of Financial Services Jonathan Garcia, Partner continues to be ranked as a Band 1 practitioner in FinTech Legal. Chambers notes:

“Jonathan Garcia has an excellent reputation for his work on blockchain and cryptocurrency matters… experienced in advising a wide range of clients on regulatory and licensing issues.”

Chambers once again commends ISOLAS for its depth of expertise and close involvement in the development of Gibraltar’s DLT regulatory framework:

“ISOLAS is highly regarded for its expertise in blockchain regulatory matters… often advises international clients looking to obtain a Gibraltar DLT licence.”

The Hon Albert Isola CBE, Senior Partner said “ISOLAS’ continued Band 1 ranking reflects our team’s commitment to excellence and to supporting Gibraltar’s position as a globally recognised, well-regulated and innovative digital finance jurisdiction. We are proud to advise clients who are shaping the future of this sector, and we remain dedicated to guiding them through an evolving regulatory landscape. Jonathan Garcia is a real star in this sector, and I’m delighted by his continued recognition.”

Chambers and Partners

In the context of employment law, one of the biggest risks to employers is the, often overlooked, two-pronged nature of unfair dismissal; a need for a valid reason for dismissal and procedural fairness. The requirement to ensure fair process ensures employees are given advance notice of performance or conduct issues and opportunity and support to either turn things around, where possible, or defend themselves. To avoid the risks of failing to meet these standards, employers need to plan and implement disciplinary procedures, which include an opportunity for the employee to hear the case, respond to it and present their side. This usually takes place in the context of a formal disciplinary hearing.

The use of a script at a disciplinary hearing therefore requires care and consideration; they may help ensure consistency and prevent accidental oversight or omission of any relevant matter in the moment, but misuse could also lead to a lack of authenticity, stilted or unnatural dialogue that prevents real communication and, in the worst case scenario, either pre-judgement or the appearance of the same. These could all lead to challenges to the fairness of the disciplinary process as a whole.

The Rationale behind Scripts

Scripts in any meeting have some fairly obvious advantages, particularly where it comes to maintaining organisation, structure and consistency.

Consistency in treatment ensures fairness between all employees, holding them to the same standard, as well as ensuring managers hearing a case are themselves clear in their instruction and responsibilities. This ensures the process is smoother, and clear expectations for all parties in advance is useful considering that the situation will often be new, and by nature uncomfortable, for those involved. The structure provided by a script can be useful in reducing combative feelings that may emerge when an employee feels personally attacked by allegations, and a manager can feel justified by having agreed points of discussion to cover.

Prompts can help ensure that the manager conducting the hearing remembers to raise all issues and evidence relevant to the disciplinary matter in question. This is critical when a failure to take something important into consideration in their decision could challenge the fairness of the process. Lord Denning, in a case brought to the Court of Appeal in the UK (Abernathy v Mott, Hay and Anderson), noted that ‘[an] employer can only rely on the reason in fact for which he dismissed the man, if the facts are sufficiently made known to the man’, and Lord Cairns’ agreed that ‘it could constitute a breach of procedural fairness [to not give] the worker the accurate charge’. A script for a hearing can ensure there is clear evidence both that all reasons behind the disciplinary have been put to the employee for their fair response and that the employer has clear evidence that the response has been considered if challenged later. A plan will also help ensure that key procedural and compliance steps are followed, such as confirming the employee is aware of their right to be accompanied. Though seemingly small, these matters and records can prove to be crucial evidence that the employer has been fair, unbiased and met established reasonable standards.

The Drawbacks of Scripts

However, an employer should be cautious of the risks of a script leading to, whether actual or perceived, lack of impartiality. If too strictly followed, employees may feel the process is predetermined and that can lead to a case that is flawed in its very nature, and open to later legal challenge. Employers need to keep in mind that the purpose of a disciplinary hearing, as mentioned, is to give the employee a fair hearing and opportunity to defend themselves against any allegations in front of an unbiased decision-maker. If a script is so rigid as to limit or prevent full and fair consideration of evidence and arguments, there is a risk that any subsequent dismissal could be rendered unfair on the procedural ground. Employers should note that the Employment Act, governing unfair dismissal in Gibraltar, explicitly puts the onus on them to show that they acted ‘reasonably in treating [the reason for dismissal] as sufficient reason for dismissing the employee’ – the disciplinary hearing is also the employer’s opportunity to demonstrate that they have sufficiently investigated the matter.
Quite apart from these legal implications of improper use of a script in a disciplinary hearing, there is also the effect that such inflexibility will have on the individuals in the room. Employees may feel frustrated by a lack of perceived empathy and due attention to the specifics of their case, which can in turn lead to a breakdown in trust and morale with management and their employer. For the managers involved too, this can limit their ability to respond dynamically to new information or adapt their communication-style to different circumstances, as may be helpful. The purpose of a disciplinary hearing, it is worth remembering, is not just a procedural exercise to mitigate legal risks, but an important opportunity to attempt to improve a situation, for both the employee and employer.

Finding the Balance

The key when using a script in a disciplinary hearing, then, is to find the balance between management going in blind and insufficiently prepared and following a uniform plan so mechanically as to be too rigid and potentially giving the perception of unfairness. It is advisable to use a script to create a structure for the hearing, ensuring all relevant points known in advance are raised and procedural matters are covered, to better enhance consistency, compliance and fairness to the employee. However, it should be stressed that a script should not be used to limit full explanation, clarification or investigation of further points that may arise and be relevant, not least for potential future legal defensibility. Open-ended questions are advisable, as well as active listening and further pursuit of any lines of interest before return to the general plan, rather than pre-defined back-and-forth closed questioning. Employers should view scripts as a supportive tool to help them ensure consistent treatment and full consideration of disciplinary matters prior to judgement and not as a tick-boxing exercise prior to a predetermined outcome.