Case by Case

By Floyd ZadkovichBusiness

Case by Case episodes

March 09, 2023 #55 Snooze, You Lose
In this week's episode, Luke and Calum discuss English Commercial Court case Anron Bunkering DMCC v Glencore Energy UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 295 (Comm). Commodity sales contract dispute between buyer and seller. Seller paid significant sums but not the full price. Buyer received those sums and discharged much, but not all, of the cargo.

The claimant seller got themselves into a procedural pickle. They brought the claim late. The limitation period was in play if the unjust enrichment claim arose more than six years ago.
The claimant stopped paying its solicitors (can I say, not a good idea?!). Solicitors pulled out.

The defendant applied to strike out the claim summarily. A few interesting questions arose:
1. What happens when a party tries to adjourn a summary judgment hearing at the last moment?
2. What's the nature of a court's assessment at a summary judgment hearing?
3. Is it necessary for an actual termination of the contract to occur for time to start running on an unjust enrichment case? Or is it sufficient for certain circumstances to arise, without termination?

This allowed us to revisit the BP v Vega case of 2021. And it was interesting to see how defendant's counsel handled the arguments in the absence of the claimant.

Calum and Luke hope you enjoy in this procedurally messy, legally fascinating case. You can find the links to this pod below in the comments. Please do subscribe on your preferred channels if you are liking these !
33 min
March 02, 2023 #54 Achilleas' Heel
Case by Case - episode 54 - Achilleas' Heel

Here we have an audio pod on a recent shipping arbitration award. Did this one on the fly without vid. Still got into a juicy topic.

Late redelivery of a vessel at the end of time charter. What damages are recoverable? Surely that is settled - following the Achilleas principles... Second limb of Hadley... Special circumstances known prior to fixing, and all that.

Well, ... what if the parties make an attempt to allocate the risk differently to that case law?

Secondly, is that really what the parties did here?

Thirdly, what do we think about the secondary finding that this follow-on fixture would fall within the second limb?

Hope you enjoy.

If you like our podcast, we'd be super grateful to have you as a subscriber on your preferred channels. It means these episodes drop into your feeds automatically and makes a big difference for us in building up the pod's profile.

Cheers
Luke & Calum
22 min
February 23, 2023 #53 Are Bitcoin Developers Fiduciaries? Part 1
Case by Case 53 - do bitcoin developers owe fiduciary duties to users? We think this is one of the most fascinating and interesting pods we've done.

Essentially, we are discussing a legal issue here that could re-cast the entire understanding and premise of bitcoin and blockchain based systems.

What I love about this discussion is the intersection of new technology and the law. How does the law overlay and cope with a fast developing area of societal life?

How should the law regulate the internet?

These are questions for our time. And questions that will impact the future significantly.

Digital currency owners (ie. users) place tremendous amounts of trust in those running the platforms - far beyond any experience, knowledge or skills that they could typically acquire themselves. Is that not the hallmark of a fiduciary duty ?

Absolutely fascinating seeing the English Court of Appeal grapple with these issues on case Tulip Trading Limited (A Seychelles Company) v Bitcoin Association For BSV & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 83 (03 February 2023) - even if this is only Part 1 in the saga.

We really hope you enjoy listening to this one as much as Luke and Calum enjoyed the discussion. Calum and Luke come at this from different angles too!

We're very grateful for all our listeners!
54 min
February 16, 2023 #52 Leaking through an insurance loophole
Case by Case podcast - no. 52 - Leaking through an insurance loophole...

We're over to insurance law today with a discussion on discuss the English Court of Appeal case Brian Leighton (Garages) Ltd v Allianz Insurance Plc [2023] EWCA Civ 8 (11 January 2023).
Vehicle repair and refuelling garage claimed insurance cover under an all risks policy for property damage.

A rock seemingly punctured a pipe. Fuel leaked. It spread across the property. Contamination followed. Business shut down, for good.

The policy appears to exclude damage caused by pollution or contamination. Or does it?!

Sometimes things aren't what they seem...

This question split the English Court of Appeal - 2:1. Any time that happens we know there are going to be some talking points.

And there are a healthy mix of construction and causation.

Listen in - this is a good one.
36 min
February 09, 2023 #51 Liens and Losses
Case by Case episode 51 - Liens and Losses.
Back for another year after a winter break with another studio episode.
This time, Luke and Calum discuss English Commercial Court case Trafigura v TKK Shipping [2023] EWHC 26 (Comm)!
Great to be in the saddle 🏇 again, with Partner Cheyne riding alongside...
Parties in London arbitration sent a legal question by consent to the English court for decision.
That question was all about what "goods lost or damaged" means in the Article IV, rule 5(a) of the Hague-Visby Rules.
Does 'damage' mean physical damage ONLY? Or does it include damage through the operation of a lien over the cargo - ie. financial type damage?
Where this gets even more interesting is that there is a prior case (the Limnos) on point, which decided "damaged" meant physically damaged goods only.
Legal commentators (and Luke & Calum) have not been convinced by the Limnos for many years. And the claimant here was directly challenging whether the Limnos was correct...
Listen in to find out if they succeeded. So this also nicely sets up a discussion on how the concept of precedent works in English case law.
We hope you enjoy!
47 min
December 14, 2022 #50 Sugar Rush
Episode 50! What an exciting milestone. This episode, we not only celebrate our golden jubilee, but also share a special announcement:
Congratulations to Calum on his promotion to Partner at our law firm, Floyd Zadkovich!
We hope you, our valued listeners, enjoy this third case in our trilogy of lookback cases. We’ve been analysing a few old cases to coincide with Luke's launch of the inaugural International Commodities and Shipping Law at UoW. This week looks back at Compagnie Commerciale Sucres et Denrees v C Czarnikow Ltd [1990] UKHL J1011-2.
Luke and Calum will be back with recent cases in the new year.
Meanwhile, check out our ⁠YouTube channel.
53 min
December 07, 2022 #49 Condition, innominate or will-o'-the wisp?
In this second of their trilogy of 'look-back' cases, Luke and Calum explore the salient case of Bunge Corporation (New York) v Tradax Export SA (Panama) [1981] APP.L.R. 02/25.

As Luke is preparing to launch the inaugural course on International Shipping and Commodities Law at the University of Wollongong, he reviews key older cases in the process.

Ever wondered why time-based delivery clauses in a commodities sale and purchase contract are (typically) considered to be conditions?

Ever wondered what is an innominate term?

Ever wondered how to tell the difference between a condition and an innominate term?

Ever wondered what is a 'will-o'-the-wisp'?

Listen in for answers and check out our ⁠YouTube channel.
45 min
December 01, 2022 #48 Mash's Potatoes
As Luke prepares to launch the International Shipping and Commodities intensive law course at the University of Wollongong in a couple of weeks, he's had cause to look back at some leading cases.

Here's one of them: Back to the 1960s. The Beatles, Civil Rights activism, flares, and... Mash & Murrell Ltd. v Joseph I. Emmanuel, Ltd. [1961].

A commodities legal dispute over potatoes.

As between international buyers and sellers, is there an implied term as to quality that the goods will be capable of sustaining the contemplated sea carriage?

A great case to refresh our thinking on commodities quality claims.

Some law doesn't stand the test of time (much like poorly ventilated potatoes crossing an ocean). Some law does, as we discuss in this pod.
For more, check out our ⁠YouTube channel.
35 min
November 24, 2022 #47 Scottish IndyRef2 - The Supreme Court Decision Explained
This is a big case. Scottish Independence Referendum 2 - the sequel?

As you will have seen from the news, the UK Supreme Court handed down its decision yesterday.

No vote allowed by Scotland without UK parliament consent.

That’s the headline.

But what was the actual legal case about? What issues were considered? Why did the court rule in the way it did? Does the decision leave Scotland with a second bite at the cherry?

We certainly learned much more about this issue, beyond what we read in the news.

Glad to have you along for the ride and hope this provides value.
For more, check out our ⁠YouTube channel.
1 hr 2 min
November 17, 2022 #46 Guess Who?
In this episode, Luke Zadkovich and Calum Cheyne discuss the English Court of Appeal case Loreley Financing (Jersey) No 30 Ltd v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 1484 (10 November 2022).
An issue on privilege decided for the first time in centuries…

Is the identity of individuals providing instructions for a client inherently privileged ?

Is there a Canadian style “zone of privacy” in English law privilege?

Don’t forget the proportionality test in RFI requests!

The Lord Justice Males Fan Club rollicks on.
Listen in to discover this surprising case.
For more, check out our ⁠YouTube channel.
52 min

About Case by Case

From the publisher's feed

Luke Zadkovich and Calum Cheyne of Floyd Zadkovich discuss a new case each week, focused on shipping, international trade and commercial law.

Share Case by Case

Sign up to save your podcasts

Case by Case

Case by Case episodes

About Case by Case