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. 24 JUL

    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

  2. 10 JUL

    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

  3. 26 JUN

    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

  4. 12 JUN

    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

  5. 22 MAY

    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 hr

  6. 25 APR

    Ep #89 Rule B over foreign banks unpacked with Philip Vagin (Ultra Deep Picasso v. Dynamic)

    Case: Ultra Deep Picasso Pte. Ltd. v. Dynamic Industries Saudi Arabia Ltd., 119 F.4th 437 (5th Cir. 2024) Guest: Philip Vagin, Senior Associate at Floyd Zadkovich. In this episode of Case by Case Luke Zadkovich and Calum Cheyne are joined by Philip Vagin, a senior associate with the firm, to discuss a recent US decision on Rule B attachments of bank accounts called Ultra Deep Picasso Pte. Ltd. v. Dynamic Industries Saudi Arabia Ltd.  In this case the first instance federal court in Texas and then the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ultra Deep’s motion to attach a bank account located outside of the US where the only connection of the bank with the country was that it had a foreign agency registered in Texas. As a fascinating technical twist, the underlying dispute arises out of a charterparty for a highly specialized diving support and construction vessel, which are used to assist diving operations during underwater repair projects. Luke, Calum and Philip first discuss the background to the proceedings, which arose out of a hire payment dispute after Dynamic Industries failed to pay Ultra Deep for the services of M/V PICASSO used to repair underwater oil & gas projects in Saudi Arabia. Suing in Texas, Ultra Deep attempted to attach – or, technically speaking, garnish – any bank accounts that Dynamic had with Riyad Bank (based in Saudi Arabia) under Supplemental Rule B, as security for its claims in arbitration. Like many non-US banks, Riyad did not have a full-service branch in the US but maintained a so-called “foreign bank agency” . This meant that Riyad could only provide limited banking services in the US, so that its US customers could not, for example, freely withdraw cash from Riyad’s agency location in Texas. The discussion – and the US court opinions themselves – center around the requirements that a plaintiff must establish to successfully attach or garnish a bank account in the US. One of the key issues with which the courts grappled is whether it is enough for Rule B attachment that the US court may exercise some personal jurisdiction over the bank itself – or whether the plaintiff also needs to show that the bank account is actually located in the US court’s territory? The decision in Ultra Deep will no doubt serve as great guidance for parties contemplating US security or enforcement proceedings against bank accounts of international banks.

    49 min
  7. Ep #88 Anti-Anti Suited and Booted

    19/12/2024

    Ep #88 Anti-Anti Suited and Booted

    Case: Euronav Shipping NV v Black Swan Petroleum DMCC [2024] EWHC 896 (Comm) Guest: Oliver Caplin KC, Twenty Essex In this episode of Case by Case Luke Zadkovich and Calum Cheyne are joined by Oliver Caplin KC to discuss Euronav Shipping NV v Black Swan Petroleum DMCC [2024] EWHC 896 (Comm), a case of which Oliver Caplin was instructed on, acting on behalf of Black Swan Petroleum DMCC. In this case the High Court of England ruled against Euronav's request for an unusual type of injunction known as an "anti-anti-arbitration injunction" (AAAI). The dispute arises out of a relationship of sub-bailment involving a cargo of crude oil stored aboard a vessel owned by Euronav. The discussion is centred around Euronav’s attempt to seek an AAAI pursuing the discontinuation of an AAI from the High Court of Malaysia, which had prevented Euronav from continuing an arbitration in London. Black Swan Petroleum (BSP) had obtained the Malaysian order after Euronav (the court later held) voluntarily submitted to Malaysia’s jurisdiction in a related matter. The court confirmed that to grant such an injunction, there must be a strong likelihood that both an arbitration agreement existed and that it was breached. While it found there was a high chance the parties had an arbitration agreement and that BSP may have breached it by obtaining the Malaysian order, the court ultimately chose not to grant the injunction. It cited several reasons - discussed in length during the podcast - including the importance of respecting the Malaysian court’s proceedings (comity), Euronav's delay in making the application, and the fact that Euronav had voluntarily submitted to the Malaysian court's jurisdiction. The conversation highlights how party conduct, such as voluntary submission to another jurisdiction, can influence whether the court exercises its discretion to grant such remedies.

    52 min
  8. Ep #87 Hedging your bets with Rufus Constable

    05/12/2024

    Ep #87 Hedging your bets with Rufus Constable

    Case: Rhine Shipping DMCC v Vitol SA Guest: Rufus Constable, Associate at Floyd Zadkovich No Calum this week whilst he is away at Hong Kong Maritime week, however Luke is joined by Rufus Constable, Associate at Floyd Zadkovich. This case addresses the impact of internal hedging practices used by commodities trading houses and their impact on the damages award in a related charterparty dispute.   Vitol, a major oil trader, voyage-chartered the MT DIJILAH from Rhine Shipping to transport 920,000 barrels of Brent Crude from West Africa to China. A six-day delay at the second loading port, Djeno (Congo), caused by Rhine, led to a rise in the Brent Dated index price. This increased the purchase price Vitol had to pay its seller, as the price was tied to dates linked to the bill of lading issuance.   The trial judge ruled that Vitol’s internal hedging (its practice of offsetting risks within its own trading system) did not reduce the damages due to it from Rhine, even where that internal hedging generated a notional gain in Vitol's books.   The issues on appeal were whether the judge was incorrect in excluding the effect of this internal hedging from the damages calculation, and whether Rhine was entitled to raise new arguments following the first instance ruling.

    57 min
See All (96)

About

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

Information

  • Creator
    Floyd Zadkovich
  • Years Active
    2021 - 2025
  • Episodes
    96
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © 871298
  • Show Website
    Case by Case