Case by Case

Floyd Zadkovich

The easy way to stay on top of the case law that matters. Luke Zadkovich and Calum Cheyne of Floyd Zadkovich discuss a new case each week, in our podcast focused on shipping, international trade and commercial law. We each read the case, then jump straight on the podcast and hit record. All you hear is our organic conversation and our thoughts on what the case is about, what the Court decided, and how the decision may affect the industry. Comments, questions, or a case for us to look at? Send it to: marketing@floydzad.com Find out more about the firm at: www.floydzad.com

  1. 22 DIC

    Ep #97 Bonus Episode - Welcoming our new Partners!

    In this special bonus episode of Case by Case, we’re doing something a little different. Rather than diving into a case as we usually do, we are taking the opportunity to introduce two new Partners to Floyd Zadkovich…. We are delighted to end the year by announcing that, from 1 January 2026, two of our Senior Associates, Eva-Maria Mayer in New York and Caroline Pennington de Rodríguez Sánchez in London — will be promoted to the firm’s partnership. Luke Zadkovich and Calum Cheyne are joined by Caroline and Eva to talk about their respective journeys to partnership, their practices across commodities, shipping and international trade, and what their promotions mean for the firm as it continues to grow across the UK and US. The conversation also explores how the firm has evolved in recent years, the importance of culture and collaboration in a transatlantic practice, and how Caroline and Eva have contributed to shaping Floyd Zadkovich as it is today. We also look ahead to 2026 and discuss what’s next for the firm, the partnership, and the work they’re excited to take on. A great listen for anyone interested in a modern international firm, career progression, and the people behind the work at Floyd Zadkovich.

    20 min

  2. 18 DIC

    Ep #96 No loss, no worries - it's none of your business: Skyros v Hapag-Lloyd with Emmanuel Michelakakis Howe and Andriy Shalennyy

    Case: Skyros Maritime Corporation and Anor v Hapag-Lloyd [2025] EWCA Civ 1529 Guests: Emmanuel Michelakakis Howe, Barrister of Lamb Chambers Andriy Shalennyy, Associate, Floyd Zadkovich This week, Luke Zadkovich is joined by Andriy Shalennyy and Emmanuel Michelakakis-Howe (Lamb Chambers) to discuss the decision of the Court of Appeal in Skyros Maritime Corporation and Anor v Hapag-Lloyd [2025] EWCA Civ 1529. The case concerned an all-too-common scenario, albeit with an unusual twist. It raised questions going to the heart of contractual damages, including what it means to compensate for breach, how loss is identified, and when a claimant’s own commercial arrangements must be ignored as collateral or res inter alios acta. While the factual background will be familiar to those working in shipping, these issues resonate far beyond shipping and commodities. The dispute arose out of the late redelivery of two vessels by their time charterers. The owners claimed damages under the orthodox measure for such a breach, namely the difference between the agreed daily rate of hire and the market rate of hire prevailing at the time for the period of the overrun. The key factual feature of the case was that it was common ground that even if the vessels had been redelivered on time, the owners would not and, under the terms of the sale contracts, could not have rechartered them or earned any further hire. Instead, the vessels would have been delivered directly to their buyers upon redelivery under the time charters. The issue was therefore whether a shipowner can recover substantial damages assessed by reference to the market rate for late redelivery where the breach has caused no actual loss of a chartering opportunity. The arbitral tribunal answered that question in the affirmative, awarding damages by reference to the market rate. On appeal, Bright J disagreed, holding that the owners had suffered no compensable loss and were entitled only to nominal damages. The Court of Appeal, however, restored the award. Giving the leading judgment, Lord Justice Males reaffirmed the orthodox measure of damages for late redelivery, namely the difference between the charter rate and the market rate during the overrun period. The owner’s arrangements for the vessel’s future employment, including a sale, were collateral matters which could properly be disregarded as res inter alios acta. Luke, Andriy and Emmanuel examine the decision from both the owners’ and charterers’ perspectives, asking whether the outcome delivers an unwarranted windfall or instead reflects a principled preference for certainty over factual precision. The discussion considers the policy tension between compensation and predictability, and the commercial attraction of clear, easily applied measures of loss. The trio also grapple with the Supreme Court’s judgment in The Achilleas, and the long shadow which that decision continues to cast over debates on remoteness, assumption of responsibility, and the assessment of contractual damages.

    57 min

  3. 13 NOV

    Ep #95 Catch 32 - transatlantic recognition of arbitral awards with Alexander Wright KC

    Case: Eletson Gas LLC v A Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC1855 (Comm) Guest: Alexander Wright KC, 4 Pump Court Luke, Calum and Alexander discuss recognition of foreign arbitral awards in England & Wales, in the Commercial Court decision Eletson Gas LLC v A Limited & Ors. This case concerns an application under s.32 of the 1996 Arbitration Act (“AA”) regarding which of the two rival boards of Eletson Gas (“EG”) had validly appointed an arbitrator on EG’s behalf. The two competing boards were: D4-D8 (“SPs”) and D9-D10 (“KPs”). The significance of this judgment (1) determined which competing Board had validly appointed the arbitrator and (2) explained the importance of recognition of a foreign award for it to produce legal effect and to be capable of being relied upon in England & Wales (“E&W”). The Court analysed issues under English law, US arbitration and bankruptcy law, Marshall Islands law, and Liberian law. This case arose out of three bareboat charterparties (“BBCs”) under which three oil tankers, owned by the 1st to 3rd Defendants (“Owners”), were chartered to EG. The BBCs were subject to arbitration in London. The BBCs provided EG with a purchase option to buy the tankers. Each of the two rival boards issued its own notice purporting to act on EG’s behalf. Owners argued they needed to know whose notice was valid. Owners referred the dispute concerning the rival notices to LMAA arbitration. Both rival boards, purporting to act for EG, appointed an arbitrator. The KPs then initiated proceedings under s.32 of the AA for the English Court to resolve. In the s.32 proceedings, the Court had to consider the relevant background which involved bankruptcy proceedings and ongoing vacatur proceedings of an award in the US. To resolve the dispute, the Court had to determine who controlled the shares of EG. EG had two types of shares: common and preferred. The common shares were owned by Eletson Holdings Inc (“EH”), company that between 2023 and 2024 underwent reorganization proceedings in the US. The KPs controlled EH before the reorganization. Their position was that they maintained control of EH after the US bankruptcy proceedings. The SPs argued that the KPs no longer controlled EH and, to the contrary, D7-D8 and an additional individual became directors in EH following the reorganization. Here, the Court also had to analyse the impact of the US bankruptcy proceedings in EH’s place of incorporation, Liberia. The dispute over the preferred shares concerned a JAMS Award of 2023 (“JAMS Award”) that decided such shares belonged to nominees of the KPs and no longer belonged to a company named Levona Holdings Ltd (“Levona”). However, the award was subject to vacatur proceedings in the US for fraud on the arbitrator and the US court had issued an anti-suit injunction forbidding an application to recognise the JAMS Award. On this point, the Court also had to consider the status of the JAMS Award in EG’s place of incorporation, Marshall Islands. In deciding who had control of EG, the Commercial Court had to decide (i) who controlled EH and (ii) who controlled the preferred shares. In respect of the first issue, HHJ Pelling KC decided that the US bankruptcy proceedings were effective over EH and that the KPs no longer controlled EH. On the preferred shares, the Court had to decide whether the KPs’ nominees or Levona were the owners of the preferred shares. The KPs relied on the JAMS Award. The SPs argued that reliance was unwarranted because (i) no application had been made for recognition in E&W under s.101 of the AA and (ii) the JAMS Award had been suspended in the US. Based on the Court’s reasons, Luke, Calum and Alex dissect the importance of (1) the recognition of foreign arbitral awards in the UK under the NY Convention pursuant to s.101 of the 1996 Arbitration Act and (2) why absent that recognition, a party will not be entitled to rely upon that award by using domestic principles of issue estoppel, res judicata.

    52 min

  4. 24 LUG

    Ep #94 Challenge accepted: the Arbitral Hat Trick with Derek Yixin

    Case: CAFI v. GTCS Trading DMCC [2025] EWHC 1350 (Comm) Guest: Derek Yixin, Associate at Floyd Zadkovich This week, Luke Zadkovich and Calum Cheyne explore overlapping arbitration agreements and thorny jurisdictional issues, as they are joined by Derek Yixin (Floyd Zadkovich LLP), to discuss the High Court decision in CAFI v. GTCS Trading DMCC [2025] EWHC 1350 (Comm).The background to this case arises out of a series of GAFTA arbitrations. The Claimant, CAFI (“Buyer”), and the Defendant, GTCS (“Seller”), entered into an agreement for the sale of 28,000 MT of Russian wheat to be delivered from Russia to Egypt (“First Contract”). As a result of sanctions-related issues, the Buyer refused to issue payment while the cargo was enroute. The Seller treated this as an anticipatory breach and terminated the First Contract.Following negotiations, the Parties entered into a second contract on materially similar terms, but at a lower price (“Second Contract”). The Second Contract contained a termination clause which stated that the First Contact was “terminated and void”. After delivery of the cargo, the Seller initiated claims under GAFTA arbitration seeking damages for the Buyer’s alleged breach of the First Contract. The Buyer argued that the termination clause in the Second Contract amounted to a waiver of the Seller’s right to claim damages under the First Contract.The First Tier Tribunal dismissed the Seller’s claims on the basis that by accepting the termination provision, the Seller indicated an intention to ‘waive’ its claim for damages. Importantly, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the effect or validity of the Second Contract as it fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement under the First Contract. The Seller successfully appealed to the Appeal Board which accepted the Seller’s claims and awarded USD 700,000 plus interest and costs. In doing so, the Appeal Board agreed with the First Tier Tribunal that it had no jurisdiction to interpret the terms of the Second Contract but that notwithstanding this, it remained ‘good evidence’ of what had happened post-termination.In the High Court, the Appeal Board’s award was challenged under sections 67, 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. In what is reported to be the first judgment of its kind, Mr Justice Henshaw accepted all three grounds of challenge under the Arbitration Act and set aside the Appeal Board’s award.In this episode, Luke, Calum and Derek delve into the thorny question of what happens where there are overlapping arbitration agreements. In doing so, the trio consider the practical challenges that arise out of potentially competing (or inconsistent) arbitral awards.

    29 min

  5. 10 LUG

    Ep #93 Thrust Into Trouble: An Engine Deal Hijacked by Fraud with Matt McGhee

    Case: Logix Aero Ireland Ltd v Siam Aero Repair Company [2025] EWHC 1283 (KB) Guest: Matt McGhee of Twenty Essex Chambers   This week, Luke Zadkovich and Calum Cheyne delve into the subjects of fraud and agency, as they are joined by Matt McGhee (Twenty Essex Chambers), to discuss the High Court decision Logix Aero Ireland Ltd v Siam Aero Repair Company [2025] EWHC 1283 (KB). The background to this case is unfortunate, but not unfamiliar. The buyer,  Logix Aero Ireland Ltd (“Logix”), and the seller, Siam Aero Repair Company (“Siam”) were negotiating via email for the sale and purchase of two aircraft engines. Unbeknownst to either party, a fraudster had inserted themselves into the parties’ correspondence. Both parties continued to correspond with the fraudster, all the while thinking that they were communicating with the other. A Letter of Intent, and a final fraudulent invoice was produced, and Logix transferred what it thought to be the purchase price into an account provided by the fraudster. Suffice to say, the money was never seen again, and nor were the engines. Logix sought remedy in an action against Siam. In response to Logix’s Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, Siam applied for strike out, sought a reverse summary judgment, and applied for indemnity costs. Following this, Logix provided a draft Amended Particulars of Claim, substantially revising the structure of the claim. It was agreed that the strike out application would be decided on the basis of these draft Amended Particular of Claim. Logix contended that: (i) a binding contract for the sale and purchase of the engines had been concluded; and (ii) Siam had breached their contractual confidentiality obligations, by (albeit unknowingly) providing information to the fraudster.   The argument that a binding contract had been formed was rejected by Willimas J. This issue ultimately turned upon whether the fraudster had apparent authority to act on behalf of Siam in negotiations. Her Honour held that no representation, by words or conduct, had been made by to convey authority of this kind. The second argument, that Siam had breached its confidentiality obligations, was also rejected. Noting that the fraud ‘worked’ because both parties passed what might have been considered confidential information to the fraudster, Williams J decided that Logix’s loss was caused by the fraudster, and not Siam. Guided by her Honour’s reasons, Luke, Calum and Matt dissect the principles of  agency and authority, along with boilerplate confidentiality clauses. In doing the trio consider the very real issue of fraud in international commercial transactions with a practical eye, discussing various procedural points in relation to claim formation, and contractual drafting.

    49 min

  6. 26 GIU

    Ep #92 Navigating Limitation of Liability with David Walsh KC

    Case: MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v Conti 11 Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co KG MS “MSCFlaminia” [2025] UKSC 14 Guest: David Walsh KC, Essex Court Chambers Luke Zadkovich and Calum Cheyne return this week to discuss MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v Conti 11 Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co KG MS “MSCFlaminia” [2025] UKSC 14 with Counsel for the Respondent, David Walsh KC.   This decision arose out of an incident involving the “MSC Flaminia”, a container ship that exploded while en route from South Carolina to Antwerp, back in 2012, resulting in the death of three crew members.   The Owners of the vessel (Conti), obtained an arbitration award against the Charterers (MSC) for the amount of USD200 million in damages. Following this, Charterers sought to limit to their liability  under the Convention onLimitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976.   The Supreme Court considered whether the Charterers could do so, given that the limitation was sought with respect to claims brought by Owners, against the Charterers, for losses the Owners originally suffered themselves. In doing do, the Court also considered the scope of Article 2.1(a), (e) and (f) of the 1976 Convention.   Luke, Calum and David discuss the way in which the arguments evolved through the appeal process, and the ultimate rationale behind Lord Hamblen’s decision (withwhom Lord Hodge, Lord Briggs, Lord Leggatt and Lord Burrows agreed). Their discussion provides insightful guidance and clarity on what can be a complexarea of maritime law.

    55 min

  7. 12 GIU

    Ep #91 Barging Back for Another Crack – Res judicata and The Stema Barge II, with Jakob Reckhenrich

    Guest: Jakob Reckhenrich of Quadrant Chambers Case: The Stema Barge II [2025] EWHC 73 (Admiralty) This week, Luke Zadkovich and Calum Cheyne sit down to discuss The Stema Barge II [2025] EWHC 73 (Admiralty) with Counsel for the successful Claimant/Second Appellant, Jakob Reckhenrich (Quadrant Chambers).   The dispute arose out of an incident with a dumb barge, the Stema Barge II. During a storm, she dragged her anchor across high voltage electrical cables between England and France, causing damage. As there were a variety of partiesinvolved, liability for the ensuing loss became the key issue.   After success as trial, the Respondent, Stema UK, failed to convince the Court of Appeal that they were entitled to limit their liability under Art 1(2) of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (The Stema Barge II [2021] EWCA 1880). When the Supreme Court refused to grant leaveto appeal , the Respondent attempted to re-frame their case, this time under Article 1(4) of the Convention. Interestingly, the submission was set out in skeleton arguments, but as the Court of Appeal expressed a number of concerns with the point as a line of argument, it was ultimately withdrawn.   The Claimant/Second Appellant argued that Stema UK’s Article 1(4) plea should be struck out on the basis that there was already a final Order on the issue, and that leave to appeal had been refused. In the alternative, cause of actionestoppel and/or the rule in Henderson v Henderson equally applied to prevent Stema UK from advancing the argument.   This discussion considers the principles of res judicata in the context of maritime law.  Calum, Luke and Jakob provide an in-depth analysis of the helpfully informative decision of Cockerill J, who ultimately found the Claimant/Second Appellant’s arguments persuasive.

    59 min

  8. 22 MAG

    Ep #90 Too Late, Shipmate! - Hague/Hague Visby Time Bars and Misdelivery Claims with Matthew Harvey KC

    Case: Fimbank Plc v KCH Shippping Co Ltd [2024] UKSC 38 With further reference to: Kamil Export (Aust) Pty Ltd v NPL (Australia)Pty Ltd [1996] 1 VR 538China Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v PS Chellaram and CoLtd (The “Zhi Jiang Kou”) (1990) 28 NSWLR 354 Guest: Matthew Harvey KC of Owen Dixon Chambers (Melbourne, Australia).In this episode, Luke Zadkovich had the privilege of sitting down with Matthew Harvey KC to discuss Fimbank Plc v KCH Shippping Co Ltd [2024] UKSC 38, a recent case of the UK Supreme Court, dealing with the time bar under Article 3(6) of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules.   Luke and Matthew dissect Lord Hamblen’s sole judgment, which gives finality to the question of whether the one-year time bar to bring a claim under the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules applies to claims for misdelivery of cargo, which occur after the completion of discharge. Fimbank argued that that the Rules only created a period of responsibility between loading and discharge, from ship’s rail to ship’s rail, so that claims arising outside of this period, would not be subject to the time bar.   Interestingly, Lord Hamblen, in reaching his conclusion, considered two diverging Australian judgments, one from the New South Wales Court of Appeal (Gleeson CJ, Kirby P and Samuels JA, China Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v PS Chellaram and Co Ltd), and another from the Appeal Division of the Victorian Supreme Court (Fullagar, Marks and Ormiston JJ, Kamil Export (Aust) Pty Ltd v NPL). This episode’s discussion considers the rationale behind all of these decisions, the practical implications for carriers, shippers and consignees alike, as well as touching on the broader principles of the interpretation of international law.   An episode with a distinct Australian flavour, not to be skipped!

    1 h
Elenco completo (99)

Descrizione

The easy way to stay on top of the case law that matters. Luke Zadkovich and Calum Cheyne of Floyd Zadkovich discuss a new case each week, in our podcast focused on shipping, international trade and commercial law. We each read the case, then jump straight on the podcast and hit record. All you hear is our organic conversation and our thoughts on what the case is about, what the Court decided, and how the decision may affect the industry. Comments, questions, or a case for us to look at? Send it to: marketing@floydzad.com Find out more about the firm at: www.floydzad.com

Informazioni

  • Creatore
    Floyd Zadkovich
  • Anni di attività
    2021 - 2025
  • Puntate
    99
  • Classificazione
    Contenuti espliciti
  • Copyright
    © 871298
  • Sito web del podcast
    Case by Case

Potrebbero piacerti anche…