The Place to Rule B | Case by Case (Ep. 68)

Case by Case – episode 68: The Place to Rule B.

„This is in our sweet spot…“ so we start on video. And it is. Our original USP as a law firm was to handle US and UK legal matters seamlessly. We’ve grown, combined and added EU legal work into the mix too, and Australian law.

This case explores the limits of the USA Rule B attachment in the context of maritime indemnity claims and how drafting of the underlying UK dispute can influence the US court’s approach to the attachment.

Indemnity claims in the maritime space come in different shapes and sizes. They could be under an LOI for delivery without presentation of bills. Edward and Luke first started working together on such a case at different firms, where I handled the UK indemnity claim and Ed attached a litigated US claim under Rule B. That’s where our story all started.

Indemnity claims could be within the charterparty context – for implied or express indemnities in charterparties for losses arising up the chain or under the associated bill of lading.

Sometimes indemnity claims can be expressed as direct claims too. It could be quite important how those claims are framed in the UK (or wherever the underlying substantive dispute is).

The left hand and right hand of the transatlantic legal team need to be talking to each other. We know, as we have both hands, and have seen this type of issue play out time and time again.

An indemnity claim is contingent by its nature, until crystallised. Can you still obtain a pre-judgement/award attachment for contingent claims?

Listen in to hear how this one was decided and the takeaways.