Calum Cheyne ist Senior Associate in unserer Kanzlei, spezialisiert auf internationales Unternehmensrecht und verfügt über umfassender Gerichts- und Schiedsgerichtserfahrung. Sein Fokus liegt auf Streitigkeiten im Seerecht und im Energiesektor. Er arbeitet für unterschiedliche Mandanten, einschließlich Schiffseigner, Charterer, Werften und Banken.

Calum wird wegen seiner detailorientierten Herangehensweise sehr von Mandanten geschätzt. Seine Analysen ermöglichen es Mandanten, fundierte wirtschaftliche Entscheidungen im Zusammenhang mit diversen Streitigkeiten zu treffen.

Calum hat umfangreiche Erfahrung im Bereich der Vollstreckung sowie im Bereich der Sicherung von Ansprüchen. Calum ist Mitglied des Asset Tracing und Vollstreckungsteams bei Zeiler Floyd Zadkovich und arbeitet regelmäßig mit Juristen aus unterschiedlichen Jurisdiktionen zusammen.

Calum berät Mandanten auch zu Fragen im Zusammenhang mit internationalen Handelsverträgen und Charterverträgen.

Calum arbeitet auf Englisch (Muttersprache).

Ausgewählte Referenzfälle:

  • Acted for Owners in relation to a vessel collision, involving issues of English, US and Australian law. The dispute involved complex claims in General Average, under a Charterparty and under Bills of Lading.

  • Secured a settlement at almost the entire value of the claim for a major shipping operator in respect of a shortage claim under bills of lading.

  • Representation of International bank involving actions under the Insolvency Act 1986 to unwind a transaction at an undervalue/a transaction entered into with intent to defraud creditors. Part of a broader coordinated global approach to enforce a claim against an insolvent entity.

  • Defended demurrage claim based on a series of long-term delays at various load/discharge ports. Developing arguments based on tendering of an invalid NOR and deploying compelling fact-based evidence to fall within an exemption to demurrage

  • Representation of a major US oil refinery in relation to disputes under their shipping contracts during the COVID-19 crisis. The dispute related to delays under a bespoke charterparty.

  • Representation of major international LNG supplier and charterer on their position in respect of a multi-million dollar off-hire claim. The dispute turned on bespoke off-hire wording and complex legal questions in LCIA arbitration.

  • Representation of European bank regarding recovery of a multi-million dollar claim against an insolvent entity under claims relating to mis-delivery of cargo. Assertively pursued security actions against possible assets and successfully obtained an attachment over assets belonging to an alter-ego in a US targeting a vessel in the Southern District of Texas. In a reported decision, successfully defeated post-discovery motion to vacate seizure order and dismiss action. Global litigation included proceedings in UK and East Asia.

  • Representation of major soft commodity trading company in English High Court proceedings, alleging false representation and deceit against a Russian commodity trader.  Matter also involved worldwide freezing orders, underlying GAFTA arbitration proceedings in London, English enforcement proceedings and Russian enforcement proceedings; obtained a full judgment and London arbitral award.

  • Represented charterers in a case ultimately determined by the Court of Appeal. The case involved a point of general application in relation to the Barecon 89 form, and turned on the construction of the requirement for the vessel to remain in class.

  • Acted for client on a multi-million dollar dispute relating to an FPSO vessel re-fit. The case involved a detailed and technical review of claims arising out of a series of variation orders, and a detailed legal analysis of the overarching nature of the contract.

Sie interessieren sich für weitere Referenzfälle oder eine Liste in deutscher Sprache? Kontaktieren Sie bitte – vielen Dank.

Berufliche Erfahrung

  • Senior Associate, Zeiler Floyd Zadkovich, London/UK (seit 2021)
  • Associate, Zeiler Floyd Zadkovich, London/UK (2020-2021)
  • Associate, Floyd Zadkovich, London/UK (2020)
  • Associate, Stephenson Harwood LLP, London/UK (2016-2020)
  • Trainee Solicitor, Stephenson Harwood LLP, London/UK (2014-2016)


  • Graduate Diploma in Law and Legal Practice Course (with distinction), BPP University, London/UK (2012-2014)
  • Bachelor of Arts, History (with honors), Durham University, Durham/UK (2009-2012)
  • Shanghai Shipyards – Fight for your right for payment on demand | Case by Case (Ep. 11)

    Shanghai Shipyards – Fight for your right for payment on demand | Case by Case (Ep. 11)

    “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.

  • Galtrade v BP – When can a cargo buyer reject delivery? | Case by Case (Ep. 10)

    Galtrade v BP – When can a cargo buyer reject delivery? | Case by Case (Ep. 10)

    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.

  • Betty the devil you know? – The MV BETTY KIX: Arbitrator bias and costs awards in the US | Case by Case (Ep. 9)

    Betty the devil you know? – The MV BETTY KIX: Arbitrator bias and costs awards in the US | Case by Case (Ep. 9)

    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.

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

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

    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)

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

    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)

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

    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.

  • Calum Cheyne Promoted to Senior Associate!

    Calum Cheyne Promoted to Senior Associate!

    We’re delighted to announce that our Calum Cheyne has been promoted to Senior Associate!

  • Uncertainty Around BIMCO’s Non-Payment of Hire Clause

    Uncertainty Around BIMCO’s Non-Payment of Hire Clause

    The vessel was time-chartered on an NYPE form containing the BIMCO Non-Payment of Hire Clause. Hire was payable 15 days in advance, every 15 days.

  • Two Minute Case-Law: The “Alpha Harmony”

    Two Minute Case-Law: The “Alpha Harmony”

    The “Alpha Harmony” was a lesson in paying close attention to the Laycan provisions in voyage charterparties. The Vessel tendered NOR on a Sunday morning. Charterers under both a Head Charter and a Sub-Charter had a right to cancel later on the Sunday (12:00 under the sub-charter; 23:59 under the head charter). Charterers under each Charterparty purported to cancel.

  • Coronavirus and Force Majeure

    Coronavirus and Force Majeure

    It has been widely reported that LNG receivers in China have recently declared force majeure on LNG contracts due to disruptions caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) which has now been given the official name COVID-19 (“novel coronavirus”). This was done after force majeure certificates were issued from the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (“CCPIT”), with the approval of China’s Ministry of Commerce.