This is one for arbitration enthusiasts.

One of aspects Luke enjoys most about practising international trade and shipping law is its multi-faceted nature. Some of those facets include:

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.

We're back from a brief break with a fresh episode of Case by Case. This time Luke and Calum review London Arbitration 16/22.

No - the analogy is not about the lights being turned off and on our podcast series. We are looking at vessel blackouts causing off-hire under a charterparty. A topic we know well from other cases we've handled recently. In addition to off-hire, our chat also touches on redelivery, notice under early termination clause and repudiatory breach.

Listen in over the coming weeks and months, as we work our way through a fascinating bunch of cases and catch up with new guests.

Calum and Luke have been wanting to share this episode for a while now. It was great to catch up with Ben Hobden of Forbes Hare - a leading and highly regarded restructuring and insolvency lawyer in the Cayman Islands. Here it is:

Read more about Ben here: https://forbeshare.com/team/ben-hobden-partner-litigation-and-insolvency-forbes-hare-cayman-islands/

Yes, that’s right - we recorded our first live podcast episode to an audience! And what an exceptional audience it was. The luncheon was put on by the Society of Maritime Arbitrators, New York, and we were very fortunate to speak with approximately 40 leading US maritime arbitrators and counsel at the event.

I suppose all that is left to say is that Case by Case is now formally accepting invitations for live speaking slots!

For the first time, we welcome an external colleague onto the show. Among many accolades and prestigious awards, Ade is a highly-respected Nigerian lawyer, with an expertise in maritime disputes.

Ade joins Luke and Calum on today's episode to discuss a recent decision in the Nigerian Courts, the effect of which appears to constrain the ability of the Nigerian Courts to give an order for a vessel arrest in respect of unpaid crew wages. Good news for Owners - but a decision that would make the Nigerian Court system a real outlier.

This conversation discusses issues of constitutional law and the problems that can arise where a codified constitution comes into conflict with a historical right of arrest.

Ade's profile can be found here: https://www.bloomfield-law.com/our-people/adedoyin-afun

Luke and Calum review London Arbitration 5/22 - A decision which looks at issues involving mitigation, remoteness and correctly particularising a damages claim.

During the podcast, Calum references Court of Appeal obiter comments, which deal with a potentially large claim for failure to re-deliver a vessel on time. The case is The Achilleas, and the citation is: Transfield Shipping v. Mercator Shipping (The Achilleas) [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 555 (C.A.). The relevant passage is Rix LJ's comments at Para 122 and is set out below:

As for illegitimate voyages, it seems to me that special considerations may arise here, but they have not been the subject of any debate before us, and I would be cautious about expressing any opinion. I would merely mention the possibility that an illegitimate voyage, being outside the contract and, if insisted upon, an anticipatory breach in repudiation of it (The Gregos), may amount in effect to a form of new offer: so that, if an owner in response says "No, but I warn you that I have fixed the vessel for a new charter, and if you insist on the voyage and I perform it, not waiving my right to damages, and I lose my new fixture, I will look to you for compensation", it is not impossible that, albeit late in the day, the charterer will be fixed with knowledge of the new charter (see Mr Gross QC arguendo in The Gregos in the Court of Appeal at [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 335 at page 345, albeit cf Scrutton’s comment at page 349 at footnote 11). That is not very different from what the parties agreed in The Gregos.

The leading sports news story of 2022 has been a legal one. Novak Djokovic has run the full gamut of the Australian immigration system. First he had a visa, then he was put into detention, then he was released, before finally the Australian Government revoked the visa and sent him home.

In this episode of case by case, Luke and Calum look at the final decision of the Federal Court, by which Djokovic was unceremoniously booted out of the country.

A fair result for someone who clearly didn't want to play by the rules?

A misapplication of the law?

Or a legal system designed to constrain the judiciary on matters of immigration and put all possible power in the hands of the Government?

This episode makes for an interesting look at the law behind the news.

At the risk of interrupting the Eternal Bliss buzz from the English Court of Appeal today (more on that next episode), we are very pleased to share our latest CxC, featuring special guest, Aiden Lerc. Aiden is one of our star associates, based in London. Aiden is completing a PhD at University of Oxford on a Clarendon Scholarship, and working part time with Floyd Zadkovich. Aiden and Luke are both proud alumni of University of Wollongong. Now, who doesn't like a technicality?! Isn't that what all lawyers for look? And especially in tax cases... Well we've got a beauty for you today - a recent UK Supreme Court case: Tinkler v HMRC [2021] UKSC 39.The legal principles centre around estoppel by convention. That is should a party be prevented from arguing a point due to how they have acted. Factually, the alleged 'technicality' involves proper service of the HMRC's trigger for a tax enquiry and conduct in response.

Thanks for listening! Share the podcast with those who you think would be interested and follow to be notified of all new episodes.

Judgment in the CMA CGM Libra has been handed down yesterday by the Supreme Court. The result is that negligent passage planning can render a vessel “unseaworthy”, and liability for that unseaworthiness is not covered by the Article IV Rule 2 exception for errors in navigation.