Case by Case

This week Luke and Calum discuss the English Court of Appeal case of Unicredit Bank AG v Euronav NV [2023] EWCA Civ 471.
This is a fascinating case that gets into the heart of the status of paper bills of lading. It highlights the dangers for banks in relying on paper bills, where the charterparty allows for novation of the charterparty and delivery against a letter of indemnity from charterers. This sets up a convincing argument for the adoption of e-bills of lading for banks. We explore the limits of the principle that the bill of lading in the hands of a charterer/cargo interest is a mere receipt.
There is also a practical dimension to this case. That relates to causation and whether the bank could make out that it would have insisted upon delivery upon presentation of an original bill of lading. The findings here are instructive. Banks should take note. It's a critical decision, highlighting inherent risks in tacitly allowing delivery without presentation of original bills of lading.

We hope you enjoy this episode. Please do subscribe/follow on any of our channels.

Case by Case - episode 64: In the Bunker(s)
What are bunkers? Fuel on ships. You know when you hire a rental car and it comes with a full tank... and you need to choose whether to give the car back with a full tank (having filled up yourself) or you pay the top up amount at the rental company's price? Well, we are talking about something similar here. Ships don't usually get delivered, or redelivered, on time charters with full tanks. But how do you deal with the bunkers? Here we look at what formula should apply to work out how much the charterers (ie. the renters) need to pay the owners (ie. the rental company) for the fuel on redelivery. It's a neat one that deals with when charterers redeliver too much ! Remember the price of fuel fluctuates regularly and we're not talking about the mere cost of filling up a car...
Citation is LMLN London Arbitration 3/23.

We hope you enjoy. We've seen a great uptick on our subscriber base for each podcast channel. Thank you sincerely ! And for those who have not yet, we'd be grateful if you could subscribe on Spotify, YouTube, Apple Podcasts or Google Podcasts.

Luke & Calum

This week Luke Zadkovich is joined by FZ pro bono leader Romina Santos Reyftmann to chat about a very publicly covered trademark dispute, featuring pop singer Katy Perry and an Australian clothing designer under the name of Katie Perry. Tune in for all the details on Australian Federal Court decision of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC (No 5) [2023] FCA 364. Enjoy!

This week Calum is joined once again by FZ senior associate Philip Vagin for a discussion about United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit case Corporacion AIC, SA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hidroelectrica Santa Rita S.A., a Guatemalan company, Defendant-Appellee, No. 20-13039 (11th Cir. 2023).

Enjoy!

This week Luke and Calum are back with a chat about England & Wales Court of Appeal case DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v Gemini Ocean Shipping Co Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1555.

Enjoy!

We go back to the moment when everyone knew what shipping lawyers dealt with. The Ever Given blocked the Suez Canal in March 2021. Luke and Calum remember it like yesterday.

This case is all about the alleged contract between the salvors and the shipowners to refloat the vessel. Was there one or not?

How do you know when two parties have demonstrated an ‘intention to be bound’ to a contract?

Trickier than it first seems and we think there may be a bit of controversy in this one. Well at least a little more unpacking to do on the law.

Does it matter if either party thinks they have a contract?

For example, do internal WhatsApp messages sent at the time saying “Agreement on Main Terms!” make any difference to the analysis?

What is “crossing the fence” in this context?

In Luke and Calum's discussion of Smit Salvage BV v Luster Maritime SA (The 'Ever Given') [2023] EWHC 697 (Admlty) this week, there’s an important lesson on how to plead an alternative claim and the consequences of not doing so. Also on how to present witness evidence in these types of contract formation cases.

We’ve been getting some wonderful feedback from our listeners. Thank you heartily. Means a lot and glad you’re getting value. If you do enjoy, please subscribe on your preferred platforms!

In this episode, Luke is joined by Eva-Maria Mayer, senior associate with FZ based in New York. Eva and Luke discuss Smarter Tools Inc. v. Chongqing SENCI Import & Export Trade Co. Ltd. et al., No. 21-724, (2d Cir. Jan. 17, 2023).

We hope you enjoy!

This week Luke and Calum welcome a special guest! Matthew McGhee, barrister with Twenty Essex Chambers to discuss Hong Kong Final Court of Appeal case PT Asuransi Tugu Pratama Indonesia TBK v Citibank NA [2023] HKCFA 3.

We hope you enjoy!

This week Luke and Calum are joined by ZFZ Senior Associate Philip Vagin to discuss London Arbitration 2/23.

Enjoy!

Case by Case - episode 56 - Process of Deduction.

This week Luke and Calum discuss the English High Court case Fastfreight Pte Ltd v Bulk Trident Shipping Ltd (Re Arbitration Act 1996) [2023] EWHC 105 (Comm) (24 January 2023).
Off-hire. An essential concept in time charters.
What if parties make the payment of hire absolute, in the sense that charterers are unable to deduct off-hire claims from hire payments during the charter (with off-hire claims to be handled later)? That's possible, right? Did the parties do that here?
Can one word - "deduction" - change the meaning of a clause from what seems pretty clear was the intention of the parties?
Isn't this all just a question of security? As in, who is in the money while a dispute plays out...
Interestingly, the context is a changing market dynamic in negotiating charterparties between owners and charterers.
It's always good to go back to first principles. This is a great case to do just that.
Hope you enjoy ! Cheers, Calum and Luke.