Birketts Shipping Team’s Post

Another English Court decision that spells increasing difficulty for financing banks in pursuing mis-delivery claims. Are the Courts encouraging banks towards alternative modes of security? For further insight, please see out latest article.

▶️ WATCH NOW - 5 Minute Briefing: The Article III Rule 6 time bar applies to breaches after discharge under both the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules The UKSupremeCourt today handed down judgment in FIMBank Plc. v KCH Shipping Co. Ltd, holding that the time bar in Article III rule 6 of the Hague and the Hague-Visby Rules will apply to claims in relation to misdelivery after discharge, as well as to any other breaches of duty by the carrier which occur after discharge but before delivery. The Court rejected the argument that the time bar only applies to liabilities incurred after loading and up to discharge, during the so-called “period of responsibility” under the Rules. The Court’s decision finally resolves an important question which has divided leading academic commentators as well as judges in other common law jurisdictions and clarifies the concept of the so-called “period of responsibility” under the Rules, which had led the Court of Appeal to distinguish the position under the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules. Simon Rainey KC of Quadrant Chambers and Matthew Chan of Twenty Essex acted for the carriers, KCH, and were instructed by Kyri Evagora and Thor Maalouf of Reed Smith LLP. Watch our 5 Minute Briefing on the judgment below and see the first comment for our accompanying article ⬇ #UKSupremeCourt #Judgment #HagueVisby #shipping #barristerschambers

Our MD, Baldev Bhinder speaks to ALB on our experiences on trade fraud and asset recovery over the years. We talk about the keys to asset recovery - Speed - Multi-jurisdictional know-how - Practical implications of trying to seize and sell cargo overseas - Legal remedies against the debtor - Legal remedies against third parties such as ship owners, tank operators. Which legal tool to apply? Freezing injunction, receiver or insolvency? Full article: https://lnkd.in/gpMSEGYx

Reed Smith LLP's Kyri Evagora, Thor Maalouf, and Catriona Casha stress the importance of the one-year time bar under the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules for misdelivery claims. The #UK Supreme Court's The Giant Ace ruling confirms this time limit applies even after cargo discharge, if mishandled or missing. Traders, banks and shipowners must be aware of this and seek #legal advice to ensure claims are made within the timeframe, or risk losing legal rights. Read this week's #Baltic feature: https://bit.ly/3CxRLY6 #Shipping #Maritime #Law #SupremeCourt #Cargo

Force majeure clauses in contracts release parties from their contractual obligations if a major event, such as a natural disaster, occurs. But that is only if the event couldn't be avoided by taking reasonable steps. The Supreme Court in RTI v Mur Shipping has determined a party's refusal to accept contractual payment in another currency was not a failure to exercise reasonable steps. Somewhat harsh for the charterer who offered to pay the contracted sum in another currency but contractual certainty was considered by the SC to be more important. Read our analysis here https://lnkd.in/eR2pzky8

In DGJ v Ocean Tankers (Pte) Ltd (in liquidation) and another appeal [2024] SGCA 57, The Court of Appeal held that the assignment of claims against a company while that company was in judicial management, made with the purpose of asserting insolvency set-off when that company went into liquidation, was liable to be struck down on public policy grounds for subverting the regime of pari passu distribution among unsecured creditors in liquidation. The court also commented on the interpretative approach to non-assignment clauses and on whether a statutory trust arises in the judicial management of a company. Read more: go.gov.sg/2024sgca57

In a landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that MUR Shipping was not obliged to accept payment in Euros instead of US dollars under a force majeure clause ⚖️ This decision shows us that reasonable endeavours do not extend to accepting non-contractual performance 💼 So what learnings can you take from this case? Dive into the details and pick up tips when negotiating your next contract on Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP's website 🖱️ https://ow.ly/VWjt50Tcy3V #ShippingLaw #SupremeCourt #LegalUpdate #ForceMajeure #CaseLaw #ContractLaw Afroditi Christodoulou | Nathalie R. | Stephen Anderson | Victoria Ferguson

“Point of Law” – Post 96: King Crude Carriers v Ridgebury November – in reversing the High Court judgment, the Court of Appeal held that, under contracts for the sale of vessels concluded on the Norwegian Saleform 2012, where Buyers had failed to pay the deposits under clause 2, as a result of which Sellers cancelled the contracts under clause 13, Sellers were entitled to sue for the deposits as debts, with the pre-conditions to the obligation to pay the deposits, which had not been fulfilled by Buyers in breach of the contracts, being treated as if fulfilled or dispense with in line with Mackay v Dick – see BAILII @ https://lnkd.in/eKfnVApe #shipping #maritimelaw #arbitration #litigation

LSI Corporate Law Flash - SEBI: Passes settlement order in manipulative trades case against Zee Business guest experts, others - https://lnkd.in/d93JUN3i

Sylvie Allen has written a very interesting article in the SkuldCharterer on the importance of who/which entity is signing the LOI - well worth a read for all of our charterers & traders!