Luke and Calum welcome special guest, Lucy Noble, one of FZ’s London based Associates, to recap a battle of the forms judgment. Handed down only last week by the English Court of Appeal.Lucy has made an excellent start with Floyd Zadkovich, handling an array of commodities/shipping/commercial matters, and is currently on a short term secondment at an energy trading company.We also touched on a - or THE key classic ‘battle of the forms’ case, involving delivery of whiskey and a caveated stamp.These cases throw up all sorts of warfare analogies - rightly or wrongly. Makes for an interesting discussion.Substantively this new case of TRW v Panasonic [2021] EWCA Civ 1558 confirms an important exception to the last shot principle.We also compare the English approach to battle of the forms cases with the US approach.Thanks for listening!

...when an option taken gets written in.

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.

Eva in the red corner, Calum in blue...

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.

So in this week's episode we get serious on damages. Particularly where you should give credit for costs saved. It provides an interesting application of the recent Supreme Court decision in the New Flamenco: Space Shipping Ltd v ST Shipping and Transport PTE Ltd [2021] EWHC 2288 (Comm)

Featuring special guest, Edward Floyd!

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.

Luke and Calum are back! Series 2 of Case by Case. Kicking off with a special guest, Philip Vagin, and with a special topic: Maritime (Leans, no...) Liens.

Enjoy your listen !

"On demand" or "See to it" - those are the two main types of guarantee. But what do those terms actually mean? Is it always clear if a guarantee is one, rather than the other, type? And, if not, what are the tell tale signs of each of these categories of guarantee?

All of this was discussed in the recent Shanghai Shipyard's case - Judgment handed down on 23 July 2021.

Luke and Calum discuss the case in detail in this podcast.

Subscribe/follow for more!

When faced with a breach of contract an innocent party will often want to know if they have a right to terminate and walk away from the agreement, or whether they must continue with the contract and limit themselves to a recovery in damages.

This is a tightrope for the parties and their lawyers. Does a breach of that specific term give a right to terminate? Alternatively, is this breach sufficiently significant to give that party a right to terminate?

The Galtrade decision looks at both questions, and Luke and Calum consider it in today's podcast.

Subscribe/follow for more!

Costs are a hugely important factor in nearly all legal cases. Interestingly, there is a big distinction between English Court and US Court treatment of costs, which was an issue in the recent SMA decision of the MV BETTY KIX.

The decision also looks at issues of arbitrator bias. That is currently a big talking point on the English side of the pond following the Halliburton v Chubb decision. This decision is an interesting counterpoint from the US perspective.

Luke and Calum look at the decision in detail, exploring all of the interesting issues that arise from it.

Subscribe/follow for more!

In the recent case of the DIVINEGATE, the English court was faced with a difficult jurisdictional question. The Claimant arrested a vessel in Gibraltar thought to belong to the Defendant. The Defendant argued that the arrest was wrongful, and that the Defendant was in fact the time charterer of the arrested vessel.

The Defendant brought a counter-claim against the Claimant, for losses arising as a result of the wrongful arrest. The Claimant argued that the wrongful arrest claim was subject to Gibraltarian jurisdiction.

Luke and Calum discuss the decision, looking in detail at the multi-jurisdictional nature of the world of international trade.

Subscribe/follow for more!