Pavlo Lebediev’s Post

#Arbitration and #Bailment: The judgment in Friday’s EuroNav Shipping NV v Black Swan Petroleum DMCC [2024] EWHC 896 (Comm) at [42]-[48] concludes at 48 there is a ‘high probability that EuroNav will make good its case… that the sub-bailment of the cargo to EuroNav was a sub-bailment on the terms of the agreement… and accordingly that in relation to its claim in Bailment against EuroNav it is bound by the arbitration agreement contained in [the agreement]’. This conclusion by Pelling KC embodies the two things I argued in the (2023) 139 LQR 592 (summary of article linked in comments) are contrary to the rule of law: duplication and discretion. The duplication is obvious. The reasoning that they are bound to the arbitration by virtue of the bailment is based on language not law. Why is the ‘consent’ binding in bailment but not contract? The only reason we are given is language ‘bailment’. But the exercise of discretion is stark. For a bailment on terms to apply as a matter of doctrine, there must be consent. Contract has a well established understanding of what consent is as a formal rule. Bailments does not because the only thing that defines its parameters is its maneoverable descriptive terms. Therefore, whether someone has ‘consented’ can be whatever the judge wants it to be. Here, at 44, Pelling does exactly that. He concludes that there was no ‘express consent’ to bail the cargo. But does this stop Pelling? No. Pelling willing accepts that the fact the bailor knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the cargo would be bailed was enough for him to conclude that there was the high probability of proving the sub-bailment. Yet we are cited no authority for this conclusion. It is, in fact, inconsistent with other cases, including Morris v Martin. Once again a judge is moving the boundaries of bailments to get to what they perceive to be a just result. It’s a discretion, not law. This point of the case is patently wrong in law. They are not bound to the agreement by virtue of bailment on terms. #PrivateLaw #ShippingLaw #MaritimeLaw #Shipping #ContractLaw Euronav https://lnkd.in/eGQe8FqU

“Point of Law” – Post 104: The “Skyros” and “Agios Minas” – where two vessels were redelivered late under time charters and the prevailing market rate was above the charter rate payable for the overrun period but owners were obliged on redelivery to deliver the vessels to buyers under ship sale and purchase agreements, owners were not entitled to substantial damages, based on the difference between the charter rate and the higher prevailing market rate for the overrun period, because owners had suffered no loss of opportunity to take advantage of the prevailing market rate during the overrun period – see https://lnkd.in/d_KpRmix #shipping #maritimelaw #arbitration #litigation

On 9 August 2024, the High Court handed down judgment in Orion Shipping and Trading Ltd v Great Asia Maritime Limited [2024] EWHC 2075. The dispute concerns the cancellation of a Memorandum of Agreement on the Norwegian Saleform 2012 form (the "MOA") for the sale of a Capesize bulk carrier, the MV "Lila Lisbon" (the "Vessel") by the Defendant Buyers ("Buyers").  Mrs Justice Dias allowed the Claimant Sellers’ appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996.   This decision is an important one for both buyers and sellers of vessels on Saleform terms. Unless the parties make express provision, the judgment establishes that a buyer that becomes entitled to cancel an MOA on the 2012 form under Clause 14 following a seller’s failure to tender Notice of Readiness or be ready to validly complete a legal transfer by the Cancelling Date will only be entitled to recover market damages where a seller is in repudiatory or renunciatory breach of contract, even if that failure arises due to the seller’s proven negligence.     Alexander Wright KC acted for the successful Sellers, instructed by Ed Mills-Webb, Ross Attfield and James Stephenson of Preston Turnbull LLP. For a copy of the full judgment, please see here: https://lnkd.in/eXhyuAxi

Another great international arbitration win for Arnold & Porter. This is the firm's 5th consecutive complete victory for Peru, contributing to our industry-leading 98% success rate for sovereign states in investment arbitrations. The firm's track record currently stands at 54 positive results out of 55 awards and decisions on behalf of states in investment arbitrations. More details in Global Arbitration Review below. #arbitration #law #international

When a party breaches an arbitration agreement by bringing foreign court proceedings, litigants should seek anti-suit relief immediately. STS Seatoshore Group Pte Ltd v Wansa Commodities Pte Ltd also reminds us that parties must deal in good faith with the court when ex parte applications are made. Read our LexisNexis UK case analysis here: https://lnkd.in/dPC3xDYs Rob Palmer

Legalonus has published a compelling new article titled "EVOLUTION OF MARITIME ARBITRATION." Authored by Maneta Milton This article explores the historical development and modern advancements in maritime arbitration, highlighting its significance in the global shipping industry. Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/dSuHwhrn Dive into the evolution of maritime arbitration and understand its crucial role in resolving maritime disputes effectively! #MaritimeLaw #Arbitration #MaritimeArbitration #LegalHistory #ShippingIndustry #DisputeResolution #Legalonus

ICSID Tribunal dismisses Kaloti Metals' claims against Peru and orders reimbursement of legal costs Executive summary:  An ICSID Tribunal has rendered its award in the arbitration between Kaloti Metals & Logistics, LLC (Kaloti) and the Republic of Peru (ICSID Case ARB/21/29), which was conducted under the Trade Promotion Agreement between the United States and Peru. The dispute centred on the temporary detention of gold shipments by the Peruvian regulatory authorities between 2013 and 2014 that allegedly led to the forced closure of Kaloti’s operations in 2018. The Tribunal found that Kaloti had failed to demonstrate ownership or control of an investment in Peru and therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims. Accordingly, all of Kaloti's claims were dismissed and Kaloti was ordered to reimburse Peru $3.5 million in attorneys' fees and $368,000 in costs of the proceedings. An ICSID  Tribunal has handed down its award in the international arbitration case brought by Kaloti Metals & Logistics, LLC (Kaloti) against the Republic of Peru (ICSID Case ARB/21/29). This arbitration, conducted under the Trade Promotion Agreement between the United States of America and Peru (US-Peru TPA)...

ICSID Tribunal dismisses Kaloti Metals' claims against Peru and orders reimbursement of legal costs Executive summary:  An ICSID Tribunal has rendered its award in the arbitration between Kaloti Metals & Logistics, LLC (Kaloti) and the Republic of Peru (ICSID Case ARB/21/29), which was conducted under the Trade Promotion Agreement between the United States and Peru. The dispute centred on the temporary detention of gold shipments by the Peruvian regulatory authorities between 2013 and 2014 that allegedly led to the forced closure of Kaloti’s operations in 2018. The Tribunal found that Kaloti had failed to demonstrate ownership or control of an investment in Peru and therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims. Accordingly, all of Kaloti's claims were dismissed and Kaloti was ordered to reimburse Peru $3.5 million in attorneys' fees and $368,000 in costs of the proceedings. An ICSID  Tribunal has handed down its award in the international arbitration case brought by Kaloti Metals & Logistics, LLC (Kaloti) against the Republic of Peru (ICSID Case ARB/21/29). This arbitration, conducted under the Trade Promotion Agreement between the United States of America and Peru (US-Peru TPA)...

Litigation activity across the maritime sector has halved since 2014 and continues to decrease. In contrast, maritime arbitration is at an all-time high. HFW Global Head of Shipping Paul Dean joins litigation analytics platform Solomonic in assessing the data behind this developing trend, which provides an insight into how the industry is responding to escalating geopolitical uncertainty. You can read his interview here: https://lnkd.in/e-zD2Rmv To discuss these issues, please speak to Paul or your usual HFW contact. #Shipping #ShippingIndustry #Maritime #MaritimeIndustry #Litigation #Arbitration #DisputeResolution

A really interesting quick look at how the maritime industry continues to shift from litigation to arbitration for resolving disputes. Expert insight from HFW shipping supremo Paul Dean and great data from Solomonic, as always! #DisputeResolution #Litigation #Arbitration #MaritimeArbitration #ShippingIndustry #MaritimeIndustry