Mariam Alshamsi’s Post

🚢 Jurisdiction of French courts in shipping disputes: what you need to know! 🇫🇷 The French Supreme Court has recently confirmed that forum selection clauses in bills of lading, particularly those outside the EU, might not always hold up in French courts. This decision could have a major impact on shipping contracts involving French parties, especially post-Brexit. If your bill of lading refers to a non-EU court, it’s worth reviewing to avoid surprises. Read more: https://lnkd.in/eN6aZmkK 💡 Want to learn more about this ruling and its implications? Contact our Claims team at claims@nnpc.nl. #ShippingLaw #Logistics #FrenchLaw #InternationalTrade #LegalInsights

UK Supreme Court Rules on the Interpretation of "Reasonable Endeavours" in Force Majeure Clauses • In a landmark decision, the UK Supreme Court overturned a previous ruling by the Court of Appeal, clarifying the interpretation of "reasonable endeavours" in force majeure clauses. The case involved a contract of affreightment between MUR Shipping BV and RTI Ltd, where RTI (because of its parent company) faced sanction restriction that prevented payment in US dollars as specified in the contract. • MUR invoked the force majeure provision and suspended performance, while RTI challenged the notice and offered to pay in euros instead. • The UK Supreme Court held that a party relying on a force majeure provision is not obligated to accept non-contractual performance as part of exercising reasonable endeavours to overcome a force majeure event. • This decision provides important guidance on the scope of force majeure clauses and reasonable endeavours and emphasises that affected parties are not required to accept alternative performance that deviates from the original contractual terms. #sanction #forcemajeure https://lnkd.in/gaGsaYdb

📣 **Important Legal Precedent Set in Shipping Agency Agreements** An SRO issued in 2014 by the Licensing Authority of the National Board of Revenue (NBR) mandated amongst others that foreign Main Line Operators (MLOs) represented by local shipping agents could only terminate their agency agreements once accounts are settled. This measure was taken at the instance of the local shipping agents purportedly to ensure proper inward remittance of agency fees and other charges accrued on behalf of the MLOs at the office of different statutory regulatory authority through the outgoing local agents. However, this regulation was being exploited by some local agents to unjustly delay their lawfully executed termination procedures by their foreign principals, hindering the foreign principals' ability to exit agreements. In response to this misuse, our Head of Chambers, Mr. Tanjib Alam, Barrister and Senior Advocate, along with Partner Mr. M. Saquib Uzzaman, Barrister and Advocate of the Supreme Court, took a stand on behalf of COSCO Container Lines Company Ltd. by challenged the SRO through a judicial review petition before the Hon'ble High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. The case travelled all the way up to the Hon'ble Appellate Division, which affirmed that while agency agreements are inherently terminable, they must be terminated only after accounts are settled. The Apex Court further mandated that the accounts be settled within 2 months through mediations out of court by the private trade body which acts as a collective bargaining agent of all local agents. This landmark decision raises a crucial point: **Will this precedent now compel local agents to facilitate timely account settlements to honor their obligations? Is a private Trade body being a collective bargaining agent of all local agents, in a position to objectively deal all grievances be it from local agents or their foreign principal?** The ruling emphasizes that while the termination of agency agreements remains a right, it must be executed in a fair and timely manner, with account settlements concluded within a reasonable period, which is also voluntarily agreed by the parties through the agreement. This case underscores the evolving landscape of regulatory compliance and the importance of fair practices in international trade. 💼⚖️ #LegalUpdates #InternationalTrade #AgencyAgreements #RegulatoryCompliance #LegalPrecedents

Minmetals Logistics Zhejiang Co Ltd v The Owners and Underwriters of the MV Smart and Another (573/2023) [2024] ZASCA 129 Summary: Maritime law – s 5(1) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 (the Act) – application to compel litigant to produce documents – documents arising from private arbitration in London between the litigant and a peregrinus third party – documents alleged to be confidential – whether third party has a direct and substantial interest in application to compel – whether third party should be joined to application to compel – whether an Admiralty Court has the power in terms of s 5(1) of the Act to join peregrinus third party – whether order for joinder of third party granted pursuant to such power appealable. 👉: https://lnkd.in/dY9UCfp4

Jurisdictional challenge- was there a binding contract? The Merchant did not provide cargo to be loaded at Houston in repudiatory breach of the booking note, and the Carrier claimed dead freight of US $100,275.00. As provided by Clause 11. (h) of the booking note, the amount invoiced represented the gross freight of US $140,275.00 less estimated port and stevedore costs saved of US $15,000.00 and US$25,000.00, respectively. As the invoice remained unpaid, the Carrier proceeded to arbitration. Read more: https://lnkd.in/dXbQPMhu

Interesting article about the importance of Charterparty terms of shipowners' responsibilities when discharging #cargo without production of the Bills (under an LOI), and the law on undisclosed principals. Article written by the Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand (MLAANZ) examining Yangtze Navigation (Asia) Co Ltd & anor v TPT Shipping Ltd & ors (Xing Zhi Hai) [2024] EWHC 2371 (Comm), originally examined by Hill Dickinson LLP here > https://lnkd.in/dVdTQzJx #maritime #law #trade

Trading companies that seek to insulate their shipping risk by allocating their chartering activities to a separate entity will be reassured by a recent judgment of the English Court, in which it was decided that a letter of indemnity was enforceable only against the entity which had issued it, and not against a connected entity (or their exporter clients) as supposed undisclosed principals. Read more in our latest blog from Nick Austin and Monty Birley. #ReedSmith #Shipping #ShippingCaseLaw https://lnkd.in/dZEQcHJS

#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

⚖️ FMC Allows Class Action Complaints Breaking news from the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC): The FMC has announced that class action complaints are now allowed. This means that groups of people can combine their resources to file complaints together, making it easier to address unfair practices in the maritime industry. The FMC believes this will help ensure fair treatment and compliance with regulations. At John S. James Co., we are dedicated to providing exceptional customs brokerage and freight forwarding services. Our expertise ensures that your shipments are handled efficiently and securely, even as industry regulations evolve. Stay informed and trust us to manage the complexities of the logistics landscape. Visit johnsjames.com to learn more about our services and how we can support your business. #Logistics #FreightForwarding #CustomsBrokerage #FMC #ClassAction #MaritimeLaw #JohnSJamesCo #SupplyChain #ShippingIndustry #LegalUpdates

See my latest case note on the UKSC judgment in The "Giant Ace", concerning the scope of the article III, rule 6 time bar in the Hague Rules and the Hague Visby Rules to post-discharge cargo misdelivery, exclusively at DMC's CaseNotes #shipping #maritimelaw #arbitration #litigation