• 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.

  • A case by case of Case by Case: Live in New York | Case by Case (Ep. 67)

    Calum and Luke had a lot of fun in NY doing this session in front of key clients last week. Our colleagues’ heckling notwithstanding. Essentially, we skip through 6 recent English cases from the first half of 2023. Some we’ve done before and some are new. Traversing plenty of territory in the shipping, commodities and insurance space. This pod will give you a good flavour of what’s been going on in the courts.
    And yes, that’s our wacky art wall in the NYC office and not a virtual background…

  • Bull’s Eye??? | Case by Case (Ep. 66)

    This week Luke and Calum discuss English Court of Appeal case FIMBank PLC v KCH Shipping Co Ltd (“The Giant Ace”) [2023] EWCA Civ 569.

    This is a good one. All about whether a claim for misdelivery arising after discharge of the goods from the vessel is time barred or not. Hague Rules versus Hague Visby Rules… Is there a big difference between the two versions of the Convention on the application of the one year time bar to post-discharge misdelivery claims? The court states that it found the “bull’s eye” in the travaux préparatoires reaching its decision… We ask, with respect, did it really?

  • Cause and (no) effect | Case by Case (Ep. 65)

    This week Luke and Calum discuss the English Court of Appeal case of Unicredit Bank AG v Euronav NV [2023] EWCA Civ 471.

    This is a fascinating case that gets into the heart of the status of paper bills of lading. It highlights the dangers for banks in relying on paper bills, where the charterparty allows for novation of the charterparty and delivery against a letter of indemnity from charterers.

  • In the Bunker(s) | Case by Case (Ep. 64)

    Case by Case – episode 64: In the Bunker(s)

    What are bunkers? Fuel on ships. You know when you hire a rental car and it comes with a full tank… and you need to choose whether to give the car back with a full tank (having filled up yourself) or you pay the top up amount at the rental company’s price? Well, we are talking about something similar here. Ships don’t usually get delivered, or redelivered, on time charters with full tanks. But how do you deal with the bunkers? Here we look at what formula should apply to work out how much the charterers (ie. the renters) need to pay the owners (ie. the rental company) for the fuel on redelivery. It’s a neat one that deals with when charterers redeliver too much ! Remember the price of fuel fluctuates regularly and we’re not talking about the mere cost of filling up a car…

    Citation is LMLN London Arbitration 3/23.

  • Aussie Gurls v California Gurls | Case by Case (Ep. 63)

    Case by Case – episode 63: Aussie gurls v California gurls
    Katie Perry vs Katy Perry

    Delighted to be joined by Dr Romina Santos Reyftmann on the pod this week. Romina is our Pro Bono Coordinator at Zeiler Floyd Zadkovich. We recorded this episode, “Last Friday Night” – well kind of.