Case by Case Zeiler Floyd Zadkovich

The "subject" of today's episode is The Aquafreedom [2024] EWHC 255 (Comm) and whether agreements on "subjects" or "subs" give rise to binding contracts.

This week’s episode "Ever Given - Salvaging a Contract, Part II" looks at the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Ever Given case.



No doubt our followers will remember when the Ever Given became ‘stuck’ in the Suez Canal. This case has been to determine whether or not a contract existed between the salvors and the shipowners in relation to the salvage work performed to release the ship.


If you want to read more about the case you can access the judgment here: 

https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/D561FAQGgU7VmoTcAnA/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1711035368798?e=1712188800&v=beta&t=VXHFJQPxCoOaBQqkqAKsM7S7WIsC9WQYwgomOypGARM




If you would like to listen to the full episode you can find it on:




You can watch the episode on Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/@casebycasepodcast4707

We hope you enjoyed the break.

 

As promised, we're kicking off 2024 with a Practitioners Clip featuring highlights from our inaugural episode. Join us on a brief journey back to Episode 1, titled 'That's got to SMART - The story of the M/V SMART and Owners' right to demand freight under a bill of lading.' In this episode, Calum and Luke will provide you with some insight into the decision of Alpha Marine Corp. v. Minmetals Logistics Zhejiang Co. Ltd., [2021] EWHC 1157 (Comm).

 

Should you wish to read the full judgement, it can be located at: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2021/1157.html

 

Remember to subscribe for more updates and stay tuned for our regular episodes and further Practitioners Tips.

This week, we're reflecting on our previous episodes. As we delve into our extensive catalogue, it's evident how much valuable information we've condensed into a brief timeframe. In light of this, we've made the decision to introduce concise Practitioners Tips, scheduled for release in 2024. But to give you a sneak peek, let’s rewind to September 2021 when the exceptionally talented Philip Vagin joined us for a discussion on Maritime Liens.

 

If you would like to listen to the full episode you can find it on:

Youtube - (1) #12 Maritime Liens - Incorporating maritime liens by contract in the US and UK - YouTube

Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/episode/4JhwuLrbWpNGeiB66BGEE2?si=OBAgOk7BSqKBlkna_pKgPg

Google - Case by Case - #12 Maritime Liens - Incorporating maritime liens by contract in the US and UK (google.com)

Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/12-maritime-liens-incorporating-maritime-liens-by-contract/id1569154701?i=1000537125850

 

Remember to subscribe for more updates, and stay tuned for our regular episodes and the upcoming Practitioners Tips in the coming year.

 

Wishing you a fantastic Christmas and a joyful 2024 from our family to yours!  

Today it is all about Chocolate, and not in the way you are thinking. Luke and Calum are delving into the legal implications of the decision made on 16 November 2023, by the Honourable Mr Justice Foxton in  Chocolate
City Ltd v WEA International Inc [2023] EWHC 2874 (Comm).



Chocolate City is a case that highlights what happens when a lawyer is let lose in the wild to establish a successful record label. In this case a pre-eminent record label in Nigeria. However, where lawyers tread, litigation is never far behind.

 

Join Luke and Calum as they take the wrapper off the Chocolate and shed some light on what transpired when WEA (part of the Warner Group) and Chocolate City executed a convertible term loan facility agreement. WEA served as the lender and Chocolate City as the borrower. However, when Chocolate City expressed its intention to prepay the loan WEA contested Chocolate City's right to prepay. 

 

If you want to read more about the case you can access the judgment here:   Chocolate City Ltd v WEA International Inc [2023] EWHC 2874 (Comm) (16 November 2023) (bailii.org).


Thank you for listening.

Luke and Calum are back in the swing of things and straight into hot topic of litigation funding as they review Therium Litigation Funding A IC and Bugsby Property LLC [2023] EWHC 2627 (Comm)



Its section 44, but with a different take on it. This decision is one of the first cases after the Paccar Case and it’s all about litigation funding. The litigation world was turned upside with the Supreme Paccar Case decision, and this is one of the first cases to follow it.



The old common rule law said, if you are not interested in the litigation you shouldn’t be funding it. Litigation funding is the opposite of this position and is unravelled in this episode as Calum and Luke explain what happens when litigation funders are not paid following a successful claim.


If you want to read more about the case you can access the judgment here here: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2023/2627.html&query=(therium)+AND+(litigation)+AND+(funding)+AND+(A)+AND+(IC)


Thank you for listening!