Case by Case

Case by Case

By Floyd ZadkovichBusiness
Download on the App Store

Case by Case episodes

  • #45 Be careful what you word for

    This week Luke and Calum discuss demurrage claims and time bars in a recent SMA case Stolt Tankers BV v. Stryker Fuels LLC (MT “MONAX”) – SMA No. 4449, 4 August 2022. 

    How many times are we going to say that the specific words chosen in a contractual clause are important?!


    Yet another example - where the words used may not align with original intentions.

    "covered by this Charterparty" - what does that mean?

    Does it mean the total cargo referred to in the charter or does it mean each parcel of cargo referred to in the charter?

    Subtle difference perhaps but big consequences in how this time bar worked.

    Also, is there room for equitable considerations in whether a time bar clause should be enforced strictly? Calum and Luke address this at the end of the show.

    For more, check out our ⁠YouTube channel.

    30 min
  • #44 Within the four corners of FM

    One of the most intriguing shows we've recorded. In this episode, Luke and Calum discuss the English Court of Appeal decision MUR Shipping BV v RTI Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1406 (27 October 2022) handed down by Lord Justice Males.


    From Venezuela’s collapse to global pandemic and then onto horrific war in Ukraine - force majeure clauses and sanctions have been under the spotlight. 

    Indeed it’s fair to say that we’ve lived and breathed these very issues assisting clients for the last few years.  We now have a case to discuss squarely on point.

    It is a SPLIT English Court of Appeal decision. It could go higher. The decision is very important in understanding, or reaffirming, how to approach force majeure clauses.

    Will it be confined to its own facts or is there a floodgates possibility? Luke and Calum debate that.

    Is there now a practical way of dealing with banks cautious of sanctions risk and making international money transfers in other currencies? Calum and Luke want to know - do YOU agree with the majority?

    Big takeaways for drafting FM clauses moving forward.

    Check out our YouTube channel for the podcast video: Case by Case Podcast - YouTube

    49 min
  • #43 COGSA in a land downunder

    (Better if you sing that title to hear the rhyme. Get it?)Indeed Luke asked Leo Rees-Murphy and Calum Cheyne to sing us in, but alas. Jokes aside, this is one for you cargo liability lovers at P&I Clubs, commercial cargo insurers, shipowners or commodity traders/cargo interests.A dive into the interplay between Australian COGSA and English maritime arbitration clauses. Much more to this than meets the eye. And highlights how local COGSA regimes around the world can throw up curly issues. There are some really interesting inconsistencies and lacunas in Australian COGSA. This Federal Court of Australia decision makes for an excellent platform to explore them. Leo recently joined the London office of Floyd Zadkovich after completing a MSc in Law and Finance at the University of Oxford. Prior to that, Leo worked for a top tier Australian/Asia Pacific law firm and as a judge’s associate with the Federal Court of Australia. He has a keen interest in maritime law, among other areas, demonstrated here by his dissection of these issues.Thank you for coming on us a guest, Leo, and giving us your time and insights. Welcome back anytime!

    Check out our YouTube channel for the podcast video: Case by Case Podcast - YouTube

    37 min
  • #42 The Miracle Hope

    A bumper episode on one of Luke's favourite topics: misdelivery claims. Why? Without wishing to sound too nostalgic - it was over such a claim that he met co-founding partner, Edward Floyd.


    The bond formed in handling that massive UK/US claim together, about 10 years ago, subsequently became the foundation of the firm.

    Beyond the romanticism, misdelivery claims are arguably THE quintessential maritime claim: the very recent English High Court case of Trafigura Maritime Logistics PTE Ltd v Clearlake Shipping PTE Ltd [2022] EWHC 2234 (Comm) (03 October 2022). Surely delivering the goods to the right party is pretty 'mission-critical'?!

    The legal issues are complex, interesting, developing, and hugely important for maritime/commodities clients and the industry broadly. We are not overstating things.

    Shipowners are not insured for misdelivery. It is an open exposure. And typically the letters of indemnity they receive to take the misdelivery risk are not secured by a bank or insurer. They tend to be corporate indemnities only. A paper claim only as good as the financial status of the party issuing it.

    Commodities traders, cargo interests and their financiers have an obvious, fundamental interest in ensuring their goods are not delivered to someone else wrongfully.

    Calum and Luke really get into it here. An hour's worth of detailed analysis. Context, dynamics and specific issues are all explored.

    For more, check out our YouTube channel.

    59 min
  • #41 Does wireless equal email?

    In this episode, Luke Zadkovich and Calum Cheyne are back for a 1 on 1 episode after having a series of exciting guests on the podcast. They discuss London Arbitration 30/22, where the validity of a notice of readiness (NOR) submission via email is put into question. 

    This is a short but sweet one. The contract provided for certain forms of notice to be given. On its face, a notice outside that list was issued. There is pre-existing legal authority suggesting such notice is defective.


    But this arbitral panel thought otherwise. Quite an interesting one. Probably a sensible, practical decision and reflects modern practice. Yet runs up against previous legal authority.

    Definitely some good take aways from this case. We share our drafting tips.

    Check out our YouTube channel for the podcast video: Case by Case Podcast - YouTube

    15 min
  • #40 Trust us, we're lawyers

    We are delighted to celebrate our 40th podcast episode of Case by Case with leading lawyer, James d'Apice of Chamberlains Law Firm from the PPL (completely made-up, Podcast Premier League)!


    Joining us from a land downunder, we are thrilled that James jumped on to share his thoughts, insight and above all, humour with our listeners.

    What is more fascinating than an old fashioned family feud of the multimillion dollar kind... In all seriousness, we get into the depths of trust law on this one New South Wales, Australia Supreme Court case Gillespie v Gillespies Cranes Nominees Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1184.

    We examine whether a derivative action in respect of a trust is different than that with respect to a company. Spoiler alert... it is... But how and why? Requires a long look back at history.

    It may show just a little too much that James, Calumand Luke love getting into this type of stuff. We hope you do too!

    Check out our YouTube channel for the podcast video: Case by Case Podcast - YouTube

    41 min
  • #39 A veritable smorgasbord of common FD&D disputes

    Moving up in the world! This time Luke and Calum stopped by a London recording studio, and for a guest well worth the upgrade. Jim Leighton of the North of England P&I Club has been a regular listener to the podcast since the early days, and we were thrilled to have him join us on this one. 

    A great case to cover some serious territory - London Arbitration 29/22 featured in LMLN. A smorgasbord of shipping cases indeed... speed and performance, redelivery not in good condition, hull fouling, bimco piracy clause, vessel damage, redelivery without full bunkers and charges for tug assistance in the Mississippi River.

    Jim's experience with handling these FD&D cases is market leading. It shows through in how he cuts through the heart of the issues in dispute. We hope you very much enjoy the episode!

    Check out our YouTube channel for the podcast video: Case by Case Podcast - YouTube

    40 min
  • #38 Ready or Not

    In this episode of Case by Case, Luke Zadkovich and Calum Cheyne welcome FZ London associate Lucy Noble.

     Lucy has been a real star in our team since joining on qualification a couple of years ago. This interesting case about compliance with Charterers' orders was right in her sweet spot.

    The three discuss the English Commercial Court case of CM P-Max III Ltd v Petroleos Del Norte SA (Re MT Stena Primorsk Voyage Charter) [2022] EWHC 2147 (Comm) (12 August 2022). The case turned on whether or not the Master reasonably decided not to follow Charterers' instructions to berth, citing safety grounds. As ever, we get into it and it prompts a lot of interesting discussion.

    Don't forget to check out our new YouTube channel for the video recording of this episode! 

    33 min
  • #37 Delicate Subjects - "Shipper / Receiver Approvals"

    In this episode of Case by Case, Luke Zadkovich and Calum Cheyne are delighted to welcome maritime arbitrator and shipbroker, Tim Hartland, to discuss a recent English Commercial Court case DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v Gemini Ocean Shipping Co Ltd [2022] EWHC 181 (Comm).


    The curly area of "subjects" always makes for a good discussion.

    Subjects are all about whether a contract is formed with something that must happen in the future OR whether something must first happen before a contract is formed.

    We got into here. Surprise and debate about whether the right decision was arrived at.

    Asking big questions like does the law meet industry practice? Does the industry understand the law?

    A combination of education, better drafting and clearer law would help the cause here.

    Tim, thank you immensely for reaching out and joining us on the pod. It was a pleasure having you on.

    Calum, your knowledge in this area is market leading. Great to hear your insights, as always.

    Case by Case goes video this time! Check out our YouTube channel for the podcast video: Case by Case Podcast - YouTube

    49 min
  • #36 Bells Angels: an exception

    This week, Luke and Calum discuss the English Commercial Court case of Lenkor Energy Trading DMCC v Irfan Iqbal Puri [2022] EWHC 2113 (Comm).

    World-wide freezing orders draw a lot of attention. When obtained, they can have a drastic impact on a defendant. A freezer does what it says. It maintains the status quo over a defendant's assets and prevents dissipation, while an underlying substantive claim is resolved and ultimately paid.


    However, there are typically exceptions in the order. One exception is that the defendant can continue to pay legal costs from its assets notwithstanding the freezer (something Luke knows well from another case he handled).

    Another exception - the Angel Bell exception - allows the defendant to continue to use its assets in the usual course of business.

    The question here is whether the Angel Bell exception should continue to be part of a freezing order (in the circumstances of this case), after the underlying claim has crystallised into a judgment against the defendant and before the debt has been paid.

    Does obtaining a judgment change the dynamic? Listen in for a healthy exploration of the topic, along with a few tangents on freezing orders more broadly.

    37 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.