From Gadani to the Garage | Case by Case (Ep. 69)
Case by Case – episode 69: From Gadani to the Garage
If you are on holidays and hire a car, then you will agree with the car hire company where that car needs to be redelivered. If you drop it off somewhere not agreed, then there will be a cost charged.
We’re talking about the same kind of thing here.
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…
ZFZ New York Lunch & Seminars 2023
We had a remarkable time at our New York client event last week!
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”)  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?