Case by Case

In this case, Mr. and Mrs. Sherman booked a cruise to the Northwest Passage in Arctic Canada with Reader Offers Ltd (ROL), a travel company known for its advertisements in newspapers and magazines. However, the cruise did not meet the Shermans' expectations. Due to ice conditions, the ship could visit only a small part of the Northwest Passage, missing out on historically significant sites associated with the region's explorers. Instead, much of the cruise was spent exploring the west coast of Greenland.

The Shermans filed a claim in the County Court seeking a refund and compensation, arguing that they should have been informed of the changed itinerary and given the option to cancel. After a seven-day trial, spread over four months, their claim was dismissed by Mr. Recorder Bowes QC. On appeal to the High Court, Mrs. Justice Collins Rice held that ROL breached the contract in two ways and sent the case back to the County Court to determine remedies. ROL appealed this decision, seeking to uphold the Recorder's ruling.

A key point of contention was whether the contract included a specific itinerary, starting at Cambridge Bay and traveling through the Northwest Passage to Pond Inlet before crossing to Greenland for the return flight. The Recorder found that this itinerary was not contractually binding, whereas the Judge disagreed.

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the case was remitted to the County Court for further consideration of remedies. This case highlights the importance of clear contractual terms in travel arrangements and the significance of accurately representing the scope of services offered.

Click here to download the full case.

In this complex maritime case, the vessel MT POLAR was seized by Somali pirates in 2010 while traversing the Gulf of Aden with a cargo of fuel oil. After ten months in captivity, the vessel was released upon payment of a hefty ransom by the shipowner, totaling US$7,700,000. Subsequently, the shipowner declared a general average, claiming US$5,914,560.75 from the cargo interests.

The cargo interests disputed their liability, arguing that the shipowner's recourse for the ransom payment lay solely in additional insurance obtained under the voyage charterparty, with premiums covered by the charterer. The dispute centered on the interpretation of the war risk clauses and the additional Gulf of Aden clause in the charterparty, and whether these terms were incorporated into the bills of lading.

Arbitration ensued, resulting in a split decision. The arbitrators ruled in favor of the cargo interests, holding that they were not liable for general average. However, their decision was partially overturned on appeal. While Sir Nigel Teare agreed with the arbitrators on some issues, he disagreed on others, ultimately allowing the shipowner's appeal.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision, concluding that the cargo interests were indeed obligated to contribute to general average. Despite some differences in opinion on certain issues, the courts ultimately upheld the shipowner's claim, establishing precedent for similar disputes in maritime law.

In this case, the Solicitor General seeks permission from the High Court to bring contempt proceedings against Ms. Trudi Ann Warner. The allegations stem from Ms. Warner’s actions outside the Inner London Crown Court on March 27, 2023, where she displayed a placard targeting jurors involved in the trial of individuals affiliated with the environmental group Insulate Britain.

The placard bore the handwritten words: “JURORS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE.” The Solicitor General contends that Ms. Warner deliberately targeted jurors, potentially influencing them to acquit defendants associated with climate activism, irrespective of legal directions from the trial judge. The Solicitor General asserts that such actions constitute interference with the administration of justice, impacting the jurors’ rights and the court proceedings.

The High Court must determine whether there is a reasonable basis for committal and whether pursuing the contempt application is in the public interest. While the legal principles are clear, the central debate revolves around characterizing Ms. Warner’s conduct and assessing its implications.

The case involves weighing the rights of Ms. Warner, particularly her Article 10(1) rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), against the need to uphold the integrity of the justice system. Detailed submissions and oral arguments were presented, emphasizing the complexity and significance of the issues at hand.

Ultimately, the High Court’s decision will have far-reaching implications for the balance between freedom of expression and the administration of justice, making it a crucial case to follow and analyse.

Click here to download the full judgement.

Click here to access this episode on a different podcast platform.

For more information about Floyd Zadkovich click here

Guest: Karen Tsang, Associate at Floyd Zadkovich

The "subject" of today's episode is The Aquafreedom [2024] EWHC 255 (Comm) and whether agreements on "subjects" or "subs" give rise to binding contracts.

This week’s episode "Ever Given - Salvaging a Contract, Part II" looks at the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Ever Given case.

No doubt our followers will remember when the Ever Given became ‘stuck’ in the Suez Canal. This case has been to determine whether or not a contract existed between the salvors and the shipowners in relation to the salvage work performed to release the ship.

If you want to read more about the case you can access the judgment here: https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/D561FAQGgU7VmoTcAnA/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1711035368798?e=1712188800&v=beta&t=VXHFJQPxCoOaBQqkqAKsM7S7WIsC9WQYwgomOypGARM

If you would like to listen to the full episode you can find it on:

You can watch the episode on Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/@casebycasepodcast4707

We hope you enjoyed the break.

As promised, we're kicking off 2024 with a Practitioners Clip featuring highlights from our inaugural episode. Join us on a brief journey back to Episode 1, titled 'That's got to SMART - The story of the M/V SMART and Owners' right to demand freight under a bill of lading.' In this episode, Calum and Luke will provide you with some insight into the decision of Alpha Marine Corp. v. Minmetals Logistics Zhejiang Co. Ltd., [2021] EWHC 1157 (Comm).

Should you wish to read the full judgement, it can be located at: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2021/1157.html

Remember to subscribe for more updates and stay tuned for our regular episodes and further Practitioners Tips.

This week, we're reflecting on our previous episodes. As we delve into our extensive catalogue, it's evident how much valuable information we've condensed into a brief timeframe. In light of this, we've made the decision to introduce concise Practitioners Tips, scheduled for release in 2024. But to give you a sneak peek, let’s rewind to September 2021 when the exceptionally talented Philip Vagin joined us for a discussion on Maritime Liens.

If you would like to listen to the full episode you can find it on:

Youtube - (1) #12 Maritime Liens - Incorporating maritime liens by contract in the US and UK - YouTube

Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/episode/4JhwuLrbWpNGeiB66BGEE2?si=OBAgOk7BSqKBlkna_pKgPg

Google - Case by Case - #12 Maritime Liens - Incorporating maritime liens by contract in the US and UK (google.com)

Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/12-maritime-liens-incorporating-maritime-liens-by-contract/id1569154701?i=1000537125850

Remember to subscribe for more updates, and stay tuned for our regular episodes and the upcoming Practitioners Tips in the coming year.

Wishing you a fantastic Christmas and a joyful 2024 from our family to yours!  

Today it is all about Chocolate, and not in the way you are thinking. Luke and Calum are delving into the legal implications of the decision made on 16 November 2023, by the Honourable Mr Justice Foxton in  ChocolateCity Ltd v WEA International Inc [2023] EWHC 2874 (Comm).

Chocolate City is a case that highlights what happens when a lawyer is let lose in the wild to establish a successful record label. In this case a pre-eminent record label in Nigeria. However, where lawyers tread, litigation is never far behind.

Join Luke and Calum as they take the wrapper off the Chocolate and shed some light on what transpired when WEA (part of the Warner Group) and Chocolate City executed a convertible term loan facility agreement. WEA served as the lender and Chocolate City as the borrower. However, when Chocolate City expressed its intention to prepay the loan WEA contested Chocolate City's right to prepay. 

If you want to read more about the case you can access the judgment here:   Chocolate City Ltd v WEA International Inc [2023] EWHC 2874 (Comm) (16 November 2023) (bailii.org).

Thank you for listening.

Luke and Calum are back in the swing of things and straight into hot topic of litigation funding as they review Therium Litigation Funding A IC and Bugsby Property LLC [2023] EWHC 2627 (Comm)

Its section 44, but with a different take on it. This decision is one of the first cases after the Paccar Case and it’s all about litigation funding. The litigation world was turned upside with the Supreme Paccar Case decision, and this is one of the first cases to follow it.

The old common rule law said, if you are not interested in the litigation you shouldn’t be funding it. Litigation funding is the opposite of this position and is unravelled in this episode as Calum and Luke explain what happens when litigation funders are not paid following a successful claim.

If you want to read more about the case you can access the judgment here here: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2023/2627.html&query=(therium)+AND+(litigation)+AND+(funding)+AND+(A)+AND+(IC)

Thank you for listening!

Luke and Calum are back discussing the case of JWL v JPM and s.44 Applications under the Arbitration Act.

Thank you for listening!