Case by Case

Eva in the red corner, Calum in blue...

If you’ve enjoyed this podcast episode, please do share it in your networks, and like and subscribe to our Case by Case podcast on Spotify. More topical or interesting cases dropping each Thursday.

So in this week's episode we get serious on damages. Particularly where you should give credit for costs saved. It provides an interesting application of the recent Supreme Court decision in the New Flamenco: Space Shipping Ltd v ST Shipping and Transport PTE Ltd [2021] EWHC 2288 (Comm)

Featuring special guest, Edward Floyd!

If you’ve enjoyed this podcast episode, please do share it in your networks, and like and subscribe to our Case by Case podcast on Spotify. More topical or interesting cases dropping each Thursday.

Luke and Calum are back! Series 2 of Case by Case. Kicking off with a special guest, Philip Vagin, and with a special topic: Maritime (Leans, no...) Liens.

Enjoy your listen !

"On demand" or "See to it" - those are the two main types of guarantee. But what do those terms actually mean? Is it always clear if a guarantee is one, rather than the other, type? And, if not, what are the tell tale signs of each of these categories of guarantee?

All of this was discussed in the recent Shanghai Shipyard's case - Judgment handed down on 23 July 2021.

Luke and Calum discuss the case in detail in this podcast.

Subscribe/follow for more!

When faced with a breach of contract an innocent party will often want to know if they have a right to terminate and walk away from the agreement, or whether they must continue with the contract and limit themselves to a recovery in damages.

This is a tightrope for the parties and their lawyers. Does a breach of that specific term give a right to terminate? Alternatively, is this breach sufficiently significant to give that party a right to terminate?

The Galtrade decision looks at both questions, and Luke and Calum consider it in today's podcast.

Subscribe/follow for more!

Costs are a hugely important factor in nearly all legal cases. Interestingly, there is a big distinction between English Court and US Court treatment of costs, which was an issue in the recent SMA decision of the MV BETTY KIX.

The decision also looks at issues of arbitrator bias. That is currently a big talking point on the English side of the pond following the Halliburton v Chubb decision. This decision is an interesting counterpoint from the US perspective.

Luke and Calum look at the decision in detail, exploring all of the interesting issues that arise from it.

Subscribe/follow for more!

In the recent case of the DIVINEGATE, the English court was faced with a difficult jurisdictional question. The Claimant arrested a vessel in Gibraltar thought to belong to the Defendant. The Defendant argued that the arrest was wrongful, and that the Defendant was in fact the time charterer of the arrested vessel.

The Defendant brought a counter-claim against the Claimant, for losses arising as a result of the wrongful arrest. The Claimant argued that the wrongful arrest claim was subject to Gibraltarian jurisdiction.

Luke and Calum discuss the decision, looking in detail at the multi-jurisdictional nature of the world of international trade.

Subscribe/follow for more!

This episode responds to our first request. Inspired by recent events in the Suez, we are taking a look at the law of General Average.

The case is a fascinating one. In January 2009, Pirates boarded the LONGCHAMP in the Gulf of Aden. They demanded a ransom of USD6m. That was negotiated down to USD1.85 over a period of 51 days. The ransom and the negotiator's fees fell squarely within General Average. But what about the Vessel's operating expenses for the 51 day period of negotiations?

Luke and Calum discuss the result (with a little disagreement between themselves!) but additionally look to the wider application on the law of General Average, and what parties can do when facing a General Average claim.

Subscribe/follow for more!

In a wonderfully wide-ranging judgment, the Court of Appeal recently looked at the rights and obligations between two parties relating to the sale of a Ferrari 250 GTO.

By looking at this judgment, Luke and Calum discuss the Sale of Goods Act, signing contracts "as agent", and how the Court can penalise a party in costs where that party fails to take steps to resolve a dispute at an early stage.

Subscribe/follow for more!

This podcast brought out Luke’s long-lost, inner rev-head. Harking back to his late teens. Not that he was driving a Ferrari 250 GTO! More like a second-hand Holden Commodore VL.This wonderfully wide-ranging judgment, the Court of Appeal recently looked at the rights and obligations between two parties relating to the sale of a Ferrari 250 GTO could be a day 1 law school case. You know the ones with:- far-out fact patterns (including buying a gearbox-less car for $44m and a $0.5m finder’s fee for locating the gearbox)- litigants pursuing arguments into appellate courts over relatively little money- multi-jurisdictional cases- interesting points on contract formation and sale of goods- a shipping law principle on the importance of signatures- an appellant seemingly winning, yet losing- how changing one’s case midway is not a great idea- a clearly annoyed court over the parties’ failures to heed its warnings- harsh indemnity costs consequencesOh and excuse the driving puns. They couldn't help themselves.