Spotify  |  Apple Podcasts   |  Google Podcasts

On this week’s episode join Calum Cheyne and Karen Tsang where they discuss The Aquafreedom [2024] EWHC 255 (Comm) case and whether agreements on „subjects“ or „subs“ give rise to binding contracts.

Another subjects case in the charterparty context, following hot on the heels of the Leonidas and the Newcastle Express. Something that we love to discuss on Case by Case.The „subject“ of today’s episode is The Aquafreedom [2024] EWHC 255 (Comm) and whether agreements on „subjects“ or „subs“ give rise to binding contracts.

The Claimant (“the Owners”) in these proceedings is the owner of the vessel Aquafreedom (“the Vessel”). The Defendant (“Trafigura”) contends that it was the charterer of that vessel. Both claim and counterclaim in these proceedings concern whether a 4 year time charterparty was concluded between the parties during negotiations in late January and early February 2023. The Owners contend that there is no real prospect of Trafigura resisting their claim for a declaration that no binding charterparty was concluded. Trafigura’s case is that there is a real prospect of showing that a binding charterparty was concluded either on 30 January 2023, or 6 February 2023.

To read the full case – click here 

Spotify  |  Apple Podcasts   |  Google Podcasts   |   YouTube

This week’s episode „Ever Given – Salvaging a Contract, Part II“ looks at the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Ever Given case – SMIT Salvage v Luster Maritime –  EVER GIVEN Salvage Claim.

No doubt our followers will remember when the Ever Given became ‘stuck’ in the Suez Canal. This case has been to determine whether or not a contract existed between the salvors and the shipowners in relation to the salvage work performed to release the ship.

To read the full case you can access the judgment here

DOWNLOAD FUEL EU GUIDE