• Unlocking the DIVINEGATE – getting into a jurisdiction clause | Case by Case (Ep. 8)

    Click on the button to load the content from open.spotify.com.

    Load content

    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!

  • Everyone’s in the same boat – Pirates and the law of General Average | Case by Case (Ep. 7)

    Click on the button to load the content from open.spotify.com.

    Load content

    This episode responds to our first request. Inspired by recent events in the Suez, we are taking a look at the law of General Average.

    The case is a fascinating one. In January 2009, Pirates boarded the LONGCHAMP in the Gulf of Aden. They demanded a ransom of USD6m. That was negotiated down to USD1.85 over a period of 51 days. The ransom and the negotiator’s fees fell squarely within General Average. But what about the Vessel’s operating expenses for the 51 day period of negotiations?

    Luke and Calum discuss the result (with a little disagreement between themselves!) but additionally look to the wider application on the law of General Average, and what parties can do when facing a General Average claim.

  • The Tale of the Missing Gearbox – Gregor Fisken v Bernard Carl | Case by Case (Ep. 6)

    Click on the button to load the content from open.spotify.com.

    Load content

    In a wonderfully wide-ranging judgment, the Court of Appeal recently looked at the rights and obligations between two parties relating to the sale of a Ferrari 250 GTO.

    By looking at this judgment, Luke and Calum discuss the Sale of Goods Act, signing contracts “as agent”, and how the Court can penalise a party in costs where that party fails to take steps to resolve a dispute at an early stage.

  • Counting the Consequentials – London Arbitration 13/21 | Case by Case (Ep. 5)

    Click on the button to load the content from open.spotify.com.

    Load content

    Parties routinely exclude “consequential losses” in their contractual agreements. But what is a consequential loss, and what is actually covered by a consequential loss exclusions?

    Luke and Calum look at a recent Arbitration decision, London Arbitration 13/21, and explore the law on consequential losses.

  • Recapping Recaps – Interpreting inconsistencies between the “printed terms” and the “recap” | Case by Case (Ep. 4)

    Click on the button to load the content from open.spotify.com.

    Load content

    Anyone familiar with the world of shipping, commodities and international trade will be familiar with agreements where the key commercial terms are agreed in a “recap”, with full conditions to be incorporated by reference to a separate document (the “printed terms”).

    But what happens when the terms in the Recap would give a different result – if read in isolation – to the terms in the printed terms? Should the parties try to read both together, to find a way of giving effect to both provisions – or should one set of terms prevail, at the expense of the other?

    This was exactly the question before the Court in Septo Trading Inc v Tintrade Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 718, which Luke and Calum discuss in this podcast.

  • Superman Security or Clark Kent Counterparty-risk? The law on Alter Ego Attachments | Case by Case (Ep. 3)

    Click on the button to load the content from open.spotify.com.

    Load content

    In this week’s episode, Luke and Calum look to the US Courts and a recent decision on the law regarding “alter ego” attachments.

    An “alter-ego” attachment is where a claimant attaches a vessel, or some other asset, owned by a person or corporation that is not, strictly speaking, the respondent to the proceedings on the basis that the person who owns the attached asset is an “alter ego” of the person who is the respondent in the underlying proceedings.

    The position under US law is not straight-forward and while there is generally a right to ‘pierce the corporate veil’ in certain circumstances, different US Circuits apply different tests. Luke and Calum look at the tests, the indicating factors for an “alter ego” attachment, and discuss some real-life examples.