NEWS
Latest NewsPODCASTS
All PodcastsINSIGHTS
All InsightsEVENTS
All EventsPrevious insights
-
Hedging your bets with Rufus Constable | Case by Case (Ep. 87)
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
Read More » -
Hold on to our (arbitral) seats | Case by Case (Ep. 86)
Case: UniCredit Bank vs. RusChemAlliance
Guest: Dr Paul Macmahon, Associate Professor of Law at the LSE Law School and the Director of the Executive LLM Programme
Summary
In this episode of the podcast, hosts Luke Zadkovich and Calum Cheyne welcome Paul McMahon, an associate professor of law at LSE, to discuss the complexities of determining the governing law of arbitration agreements under English law following the UK Supreme Court decision in UniCredit Bank vs. RusChemAlliance. In this conversation, the speakers delve into this topic’s substantive and procedural complexities and practical effects. They focus on the Supreme Court considerations concerning the law of the main contract and the law of the arbitral seat. They also discuss the role of English law, forum non conveniens, and anti-suit injunctions concerning the nuanced topic of the applicable law to the arbitration agreement.Guest’s background:
Paul MacMahon is an Associate Professor of Law at the LSE Law School and the Director of the Executive LLM Programme. His primary interests are contracts, commercial law, and international arbitration. Before coming to the LSE, Paul taught at Harvard and Cambridge. He studied at Oxford (BA, BCL, DPhil) and Harvard (JD), and served as a law clerk in the United States for Judge Guido Calabresi and Judge John Gleeson. Paul also worked as a litigation lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP in New York City and remains a member of the New York Bar. In addition to teaching at LSE, Paul is a regular Visiting Professor at Católica Global School of Law in Lisbon. He has served as an expert on English law in foreign court proceedings.Keywords arbitration, governing law, international law, dispute resolution, legal education, LinkedIn, sanctions, jurisdiction, commercial law, contracts, jurisdiction, governing law, arbitration, English law, Enka decision, anti-suit injunctions, international arbitration, legal implications, arbitration agreements, Supreme Court
Read More » -
Let the force majeure be with principle | Case by Case (Ep. 85)
RTI Ltd (Respondent) v MUR Shipping BV (Appellant)
On this episode Luke and Calum are joined by Alexander Wright KC – A great debate, with varying views and perspectives looking at whether or not a party was required to accept non-contractual performance to overcome a force majeure issue. This a salient case – which will be a reference point for many Force Majeure cases moving forward, as it sets down matters of general principle.In the case of RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV, the central issue was whether a force majeure clause in a contract requires the affected party to accept non-contractual performance to mitigate the event’s effects. The High Court ruled that it does not unless explicitly stated. However, the Court of Appeal, with a majority decision, held that in certain circumstances, the clause might require accepting such performance. The dissenting opinion agreed with the High Court. The case is now being appealed to the Supreme Court for a final decision.
Read More » -
The narrow and mitigating appeal of arbitrations with James M. Turner KC | Case by Case (Ep. 84)
Viterra BV v. Sharp Corporation LtdThis case involves an appeal and cross-appeal arising from two Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA) appeal awards related to Cost & Freight free out (C&FFO) Mundra sales of pulses. The primary issues revolve around the jurisdiction of the court on appeals from arbitration awards under the Arbitration Act 1996.
There are two main themes explored in this podcast:
- The procedural safeguard on court appeals from arbitration decisions; and
- How mitigation and the compensation principle interrelate for quantum.
To download the full judgement click here
Read More » -
Polar Explorers 2 (unrelated) | Case by Case (Ep. 83)
In this case, Mr. and Mrs. Sherman booked a cruise to the Northwest Passage in Arctic Canada with Reader Offers Ltd (ROL), a travel company known for its advertisements in newspapers and magazines. However, the cruise did not meet the Shermans’ expectations. Due to ice conditions, the ship could visit only a small part of the Northwest Passage, missing out on historically significant sites associated with the region’s explorers. Instead, much of the cruise was spent exploring the west coast of Greenland.
Read More » -
Polar Explorers | Case by Case (Ep. 82)
In this complex maritime case, the vessel MT POLAR was seized by Somali pirates in 2010 while traversing the Gulf of Aden with a cargo of fuel oil. After ten months in captivity, the vessel was released upon payment of a hefty ransom by the shipowner, totaling US$7,700,000. Subsequently, the shipowner declared a general average, claiming US$5,914,560.75 from the cargo interests.
Read More »
