+380952312525
Law Firm

Transport-Shipping-International Trade-Corporate and Taxes - Yachting

Sign up for a consultation

Interlegal digest – SHIPPING

13 July, 2022

7

Interlegal Quarterly Shipping Newsletter

“Subject to…” – is it an absolute excuse for contract non-performance?

DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v Gemini Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd [2022] EWHC 181 (Comm)

The dispute was arising out of the Charterers repudiatory breach of voyage Charter Party concluded between the parties for the vessel for carriage of coal. A fixture recap was issued preceded by the words “subject shippers/receivers’ approval”. As soon as the C/P was concluded, the Charterers rejected the vessel on the grounds that she had not been approved by the Shippers. The Owners subsequently sought damages for wrongful rejection and applied to arbitration for its recovery. A sole arbitrator in London issued an Award finding that the Charterers repudiated the charter on the basis that the vessel’s approval had been unreasonably withheld.

However, shortly the Charterers successfully challenged the Award pursuant to Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the basis that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction.

It was found that the “subjects” provision was a pre-condition to the effectiveness of both the contract and the arbitration agreement contained within it, that is approved by the decision in The Leonidas [2020] EWHC 1986 (Comm). Jacobs J. said: “The placement of this provision at the start, and the use of bold text, reflected the importance of this provision. It indicated, in my view, that it qualified everything which followed. That naturally includes the arbitration clause itself.” Therefore, as “shipper/receiver’s approval” was not in fact obtained, the “subjects” provision was not satisfied, and so neither the contract nor the arbitration agreement became binding on the parties.

LMAA publishes caseload statistics for 2021

Despite the disruption and restrictions of last year, the LMAA has published a solid set of its caseload statistics for 2021. Under the LMAA Terms and Procedures the members reported 2777 new appointments in an estimated 1,657 references. 

Reflecting readjustments which occurred in shipping markets after the turmoil of 2020, the numbers are slightly but not significantly reduced compared with 2020’s figures (3,010 and 1,775 respectively). However, there was also a considerable increase in the number of appointments under the Intermediate Claims Procedure (54 up from 43 in 2020), which is designed to deal with claims between US$100,000 and US$400,000. 

It is estimated that 531 awards were published in 2021, that is the highest number of awards since 2016. The overwhelming majority of LMAA arbitrations are conducted on documents and written submissions only, but it should be noted, that the pandemic did not even prevent progress with hearings, such as in-person, virtual and hybrid after some interruptions in 2020. 77 awards were made after hearings in comparison to 53 in 2020. 

The 2021 statistics show that London-seated arbitration under LMAA Terms and Procedures remains the world’s first choice of arbitration for the resolution of maritime disputes (including shipping, offshore energy and international trade).

Russian Sanctions and Their Wider Implications for Commodities and Shipping Clients

While the Ukraine – Russia war continues, unprecedented global sanctions against Russia continue to be implemented. Reviews of existing contracts, insurance policies and other impacts and contingencies will still need to be undertaken regularly in light of the changing daily landscape.

The EU, among other restrictive measures, imposed import bans into the EU on goods originating from the non-government-controlled areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, as well as restrictions on the direct or indirect provision of financing and insurance and reinsurance of the goods. Restrictive measures also include the prohibition to sell, supply or transfer or export goods and technology within the key sectors (transport, telecommunications, energy, the prospecting, exploration and production of oil, gas and mineral resources) to the mentioned regions.

For the commodities and shipping perspective, since the end of February it has been seen a wide range of legal claims and challenges, from dealing with damaged vessels in ports of Ukraine, to challenging the validity of force majeure notices and disputes arising under price adjustment clauses, and issues relating to increased margin calls.

While the war continues, significant upheaval and adaptations to supply chains and contractual arrangements will need to be undertaken and kept under continuous review.

In the light of above, careful review of existing sanctions and force majeure clauses in contracts will be necessary to consider whether the imposition of sanctions will enable the parties to a transaction to suspend performance without liability and/ or terminate the contract. This may involve not only looking at the scenario where the law directly prohibits performance, but also the scenario where the parties may be faced with the risk of the imposition of sanctions.

For companies, who directly deals with commodity trading, shipping, or storage and processing industries we also recommend careful reviewing all their insurance policies and made determinations as to which locations, assets or inventories were covered by wartime insurance clauses, which were not, and what actions might be necessary to be taken in occurred circumstances.

Claims Handling on the Danube: breach of the Charter Parties

Since the beginning of hostilities in Ukraine, in the shipping practice of Interlegal, the number of requests regarding the settlement of disputes between Charterers and Ship Owners has significantly increased due to the unlawful termination of the charter parties, which involve a voyage with a ship call to the seaports of Ukraine, especially to ports on the Danube.

In one of such cases, a voyage charter involved the vessel carrying cargo from the port of Reni (Ukraine) to the port of Marmara (Turkey). The ship came to the anchorage in the port of Sulina, but soon, without even starting to move towards Reni, the Owner canceled the charter, referring to the worsening situation in Ukraine, which is certainly an illegal step taken by the Owner.

In another case, the parties entered into a voyage charter, which involved cargo transportation from the port of Reni (Ukraine) to the port of Silistra (Bulgaria). Failing to provide the vessel in the agreed lay/can, the Shipowner canceled the voyage, arguing his position by the fact that the crew was afraid to proceed to Ukraine due to active hostilities and referring to the force majeure clause in the charter, the applicability of which was soon refuted.

Both cases contain different clauses in the charter, different applicable law, different reasons for cancellation, but the subject of the dispute remains the same.

In both cases, Interlegal lawyers were able to successfully prove the illegality of actions taken by the Shipowners, and also continue to help Clients carefully examine the current situation, clarify their rights and obligations, and most importantly, resolve the dispute amicably by conducting Claims Handling. Such a procedure involves professional negotiations between the parties to the dispute, as well as the reservation for the Charterers of the right to claim recovery for all losses caused by the violation of the charter conditions by the Owners, including the difference in freight for obtaining alternative tonnage, cargo storage costs, etc. after the completion of the replacement voyage.

Do Sanctions Create Force Majeure?

MUR Shipping BV v RTI Ltd [2022] EWHC 467 (Comm) Jacobs J.

This recent case in the London Commercial Courts raised an important issue on the extent of a party’s entitlement to serve a force majeure notice in circumstances where an alternative mode of performance, albeit of a non-contractual nature, was available to it.

In June 2016 the Contract of Affreightment (“COA”) was concluded between Mur Shipping BV (“the Owners”) RTI Ltd (“the Charterers”) for carriage of approximately 280,000 metric tons per month of bauxite from Conakry in Guinea to Dneprobugsky in Ukraine. On 6 April 2018, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) applied sanctions to RTI’s parent company, adding them to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List. This event led to the Owners sending a force majeure notice on 10 April 2018.

The Owners declared that further performance of the COA would be a breach of sanctions, which in turn would also prevent dollar payments as required under the COA. The Charterers responded that sanctions would not interfere with cargo operations, that payment could be made in Euros, and that the Owners, being a Dutch company, were not a “US person” caught by sanctions. Relying upon Force Majeure clause the Owners declined to nominate ships under the COA and the Charterers referred to the arbitration with the claim for recovery of incurred additional costs for substitute alternative tonnage.

The Tribunal succeeded the Owners’ position, but it was one point on which it failed – applying the terms of the force majeure clause, it could have been “overcome by reasonable endeavours from the Party affected.” The tribunal considered that the exercise of reasonable endeavours required the Owners to accept a proposal made by the Charterers to make payment in Euro, describing that this alternative has no detriment to Owners and the Charterers had made it clear in correspondence that they would bear any additional costs.

Soon the Owners appealed arguing that the exercise of “reasonable endeavours” does not require the affected party to agree to vary the terms of the contract or agree to a non-contractual performance, therefore they had not accepted payment in (non-contractual) Euro instead of (contractual) US Dollars.

Having considered the case-law in this area and in particular the well-known cases of Bulman v Fenwick and Vancouver Strikes the Judge held that there was no authority to support the proposition of Charterers and that the exercise of reasonable endeavours did not require the Owners to sacrifice their contractual right to payment in US$, and with it their right to rely upon the force majeure clause.

If there was a contractual right to payment in US$, and a contractual obligation to pay in that currency, then this was a right and obligation which formed part of the parties’ bargain. The exercise of reasonable endeavours required endeavours towards the performance of that bargain; not towards the performance directed towards achieving a different result which formed no part of the parties’ agreement.

The Charterers also argued the defective nature of the force majeure notice given by the Owners, as it did not spell out how the prevention of US dollar payments, in consequence of the sanctions, would impact upon loading and discharge.

According to this point the judge held that it is not necessary for a notice to spell out a detailed case in that regard and that a notice need not contain or be equivalent to a detailed legal submission, particularly bearing in mind that it must be served in a short time-frame, namely within 48 hours of a party becoming aware of a force majeure event.

Furthermore, the notice was sufficient to fulfil the purpose of a force majeure notice as described by Aikens J in Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum v Okta Crude Oil Refinery [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 at [134]:

The reason for requiring notice to be given must be that the “other party” can then investigate the alleged force majeure at the time. It can challenge whether it does prevent performance or delay in performance by the party invoking force majeure. Alternatively it can see if there are other means of enabling performance to be continued.”

That it was sufficient was demonstrated by the Charterers’ response to the notice from which it was apparent that the notice had indeed enabled them to investigate the alleged force majeure events and to challenge whether it prevented or delayed performance.

Commercial Court sets aside part of an award for breach of the Tribunal’s duty of fairness under Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996:

The Award in question arose from a dispute between the Owners (Lavender Shipmanagement) and Charterers (Ducat Maritime) under a time charterparty in respect of the m/v Majesty. Owners claimed US$37,831 by way of unpaid hire on the basis of their Final Hire Statement and referred the dispute to the arbitration under the LMAA Small Claims Procedure. Charterers denied that the outstanding sums and further sought to deduct US$15,070 for the Vessel’s underperformance by way of set off and counterclaim.

The Arbitrator succeeded the Owners’ claim, save that one item, US$9,553 for damages for inadequate hull cleaning, was not due and owing. He also rejected Charterers’ underperformance counterclaim.

As a general rule the Arbitrator should have awarded Owners US$28,277.91, that is calculated as the claimed sum (US$37,831.83) less the unsuccessful hull cleaning claim (US$9,553.92). Instead, the Arbitrator added the Charterers’ unsuccessful counterclaim of US$15,070 to Owner’s total claim which led to the Owners were awarded approximately 33% more than they were entitled to. Subsequently the Charterers twice applied to correct the Award on the basis of a clerical mistake or error under section 57(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996. However, the Owners opposed the application and the Arbitrator declined to correct the Award.

Soon the Charterers attempted to challenge the part of the Award submitting that there was an irregularity falling within section 68(2)(a) – failure of the tribunal to comply with general duty of the Tribunal – on two alternative arguments:

(1)    The Arbitrator reached a conclusion that was contrary to the common position of the parties, without providing an opportunity for the parties to address him on the issue;

(2)    He had made an obvious accounting mistake.

On the first ground, Butcher J held that there was such an irregularity and that the parties had agreed that the Charterers’ counterclaim did not form part of the Owners’ claim. The parties had not made submissions on that point because there was no need to.

According to the second ground, Butcher J found that a gross and obvious accounting/arithmetical mistake may well represent a failure to conduct the proceedings fairly, therefore Section 68 can probably be regarded as applicable, without subverting its focus on process.

Having found that there was an irregularity falling within section 68(2)(a), Butcher J came without any doubt to the conclusion that there was “substantial injustice” and accordingly set aside part of the Award.

The importance of this decision lies in providing the clarity on the recourse a party has under Section 68 of Arbitration Act when faced with an award containing a “glaringly obvious error” which the Tribunal refuses to correct. A decision can be challenged, not on the basis that the tribunal was irrational or illogical in its reasoning, but on the basis that it has departed from the common ground parties implicitly share.

Author
Aleksey Remeslo
Partner, Head of International Trade dept
Consultation
Aleksey Remeslo
Partner, Head of International Trade dept
Consultation
Щоб постійно отримувати важливу інформацію, а головне швидко - підписуйтеся на новини з сайту
Підпишіться на новини

Публікації з цієї категорії

Цей запис не має тегів.

Інші публікації

How Interlegal helped the largest trader from Kazakhstan

2 December, 2024

0.005k

New Transfer Pricing Rules in Cyprus: Global Transparency and New Challenges

13 November, 2024

0.012k

Post-Event Release for the Seminar “Maritime Disputes in Ukraine: Court and Arbitration Perspectives”

29 October, 2024

0.013k

Legal support for agricultural traders: an interview with a partner of a law firm

28 October, 2024

0.078k

Battle in the Black Sea

27 August, 2024

0.027k

The Hamburg case: Why the Antitrust Committee of Ukraine got concerned in the German port

24 August, 2024

0.024k

Lien on cargo on board the vessel in Ukraine

3 August, 2024

0.036k

Default by English law in commercial contract

2 August, 2024

0.019k

Updated ship arrest procedure: new opinion on ship arrest in Odesa Region in the wartime

25 July, 2024

0.01k

Investment insurance

1 July, 2024

0.006k

Interlegal Shipping digest Q4 2023

8 January, 2024

0.01k

What errors should be avoided while entering into CIF contracts?

15 December, 2023

0.018k

Certificate is final as to quality…

13 December, 2023

0.005k

18 months of war in Ukraine: how the shipping industry is faring

5 December, 2023

0.005k

Vessel blocking at the Ukrainian sea ports

4 December, 2023

0.01k

Disputes upon small demurrage: to apply to arbitration or not?

31 October, 2023

0.005k

Rising to the challenges of war

20 October, 2023

0.005k

Have you already fixed business processes of your company in Poland?

3 October, 2023

0.003k

Interpreting a Force Majeure clause in the face of international sanctions – the case of Mur Shipping BV v RTI Ltd provides guidance

16 August, 2023

0.002k

Business collaborations and partnership agreements in the wartime

3 August, 2023

0.004k

New report of Paris MOU for 2022

5 July, 2023

0.004k

What to do if the vessel arrives at destination port and freight is still unpaid?

4 July, 2023

0.007k

Is the law governing of your arbitration agreement clear?

31 May, 2023

0.006k

A million-cost inattentiveness

25 May, 2023

0.003k

Price discount as per GAFTA 48 Extension Clause

15 May, 2023

0.011k

Interlegal Shipping digest Q1 2023

24 April, 2023

0.009k

Anticipatory breach: FAQ

17 April, 2023

0.004k

Solutions for chartering business in Montenegro

27 March, 2023

0.007k

Cargo loss – warehouse director’s liability

23 March, 2023

0.005k

Bank Compliance: not so black as it is painted

6 March, 2023

0.005k

Agency Agreement: what are the keystones?

24 February, 2023

0.005k

It is your choice: Bill Of Lading or Sea Way Bill

23 February, 2023

0.006k

Overview of Schemes Implemented to Attract Business Relocation to Cyprus

13 February, 2023

0.004k

Beijing Convention on the Judicial Sale of Ships

3 February, 2023

0.007k

What should you do if your foreign counteragent fails to fulfill its obligations as per deal?

1 February, 2023

0.002k

How to extend supply term under Gafta & Fosfa Rules

20 January, 2023

0.006k

Interlegal Trade digest Q4 2022

16 January, 2023

0.004k

Setting up and operating a joint venture in Ukraine

10 January, 2023

0.003k

What should we do if Bill of Lading is lost?

16 December, 2022

0.006k

FOSFA e-Seal for Certificates of Analysis

15 December, 2022

0.032k

Interlegal Shipping digest Q4 2022

9 December, 2022

0.005k

YACHT INSURANCE UNDER ENGLISH LAW

31 October, 2022

0.007k

EBA: Regional Business Review. Key Challenges Odessa Entrepreneurs Facing in 2022

18 October, 2022

0.003k

Blockade of the Ukrainian seaports: which problems shipping and trade faced

11 October, 2022

0.003k

Legislation in Greece: what you need to consider

28 September, 2022

0.007k

Interlegal Trade digest Q3 2022

22 September, 2022

0.004k

Buying a yacht in storage

30 August, 2022

0.003k

Smart Contracts: how the parties should defend themselves

29 August, 2022

0.005k

CORPORATE NEWS: UKRAINE AND WORLD

18 August, 2022

0.029k

Interlegal digest – SHIPPING

13 July, 2022

0.007k

Paris Memorandum Report 2021

12 July, 2022

0.004k

Why grain can’t get out of Ukraine

22 June, 2022

0.004k

The Marshall Plan for Ukraine: open issues

23 May, 2022

0.008k

Shipowner offshore company + flag for the vessel

2 May, 2022

0.004k

Sea line carriers: operation in Ukraine from 24.02.2022

22 March, 2022

0.007k

Ukrainian Legal Alert (17.02.2022)

17 February, 2022

0.003k

Interlegal Quarterly Shipping Newsletter Q4, 2021

28 December, 2021

0.005k

How banks will control foreign currency accounts of non-residents

22 October, 2021

0.003k

Interlegal Quarterly Shipping Newsletter Q3

12 October, 2021

0.004k

Soya beans: risks and loss prevention recommendations

7 October, 2021

0.003k

How can a foreigner hire employees in Ukraine?

22 September, 2021

0.007k

Ukraine Ports, Shipping & Transport News Bulletin_June_2021

2 July, 2021

0.003k

From July 11 – disclosure of information on the ownership structure of Ukrainian legal entities

1 July, 2021

0.003k

The Turkish Ministry of Transport has launched an initiative to enhance the Turkish commercial fleet!

0.001k

Interlegal prevented obtaining the Client’s cargo by fraudsters

29 June, 2021

0.004k

Interlegal Quarterly Shipping Newsletter

14 June, 2021

0.005k

Cargo insurance under CIF contracts: what should the parties to pay attention to?

4 June, 2021

0.003k

Port Dues in Ukraine: Next Step to Reform?

2 June, 2021

0.005k

Recognition of foreign judicial & arbitration awards in Ukraine

1 June, 2021

0.004k

Ukrainian grain market development: Lawyer’s opinion

20 May, 2021

0.003k

Ukraine Ports, Shipping and Transport News Bulletin April 2021

5 May, 2021

0.004k

Ever Given grounding: who is liable for carrier and forwarder delays?

29 April, 2021

0.006k

New LMAA Terms and Procedures – Coming into effect on 1 May 2021

28 April, 2021

0.007k

Probing Virgin Ground: Worries of international consultants in Ukraine

0.004k

New inland water transport law adopted in Ukraine

27 April, 2021

0.006k

Ukraine ports shipping news bulletin – march 2021

5 April, 2021

0.004k

Once again, a maritime accident has come to the attention of the international community

31 March, 2021

0.005k

Non-resident companies shall register with the Ukrainian tax authorities as payers of income tax

18 March, 2021

0.004k

NEW RULES OF LONDON ARBITRATION

11 March, 2021

0.005k

Transport, Shipping & Port News Bulletin by Interlegal

2 March, 2021

0.015k

An EVER GIVEN … event: what’s next?

1 March, 2021

0.003k

Welcome to the jungle or What should be watched out in Ukraine

12 February, 2021

0.007k

Quarterly Shipping Newsletter by Interlegal – Q1-2021

5 February, 2021

0.003k

Transport, Shipping & Port Bulletin by Interlegal

3 February, 2021

0.007k

Ukrainian Ports, Shipping and Transport News Bulletin December 2020

11 January, 2021

0.004k

November Transport, Shipping & Port News

4 December, 2020

0.004k

A victim of fraud: how to avoid it?

23 November, 2020

0.006k

QUALITY FINALITY AT THE LOADING PLACE: ENGLISH LAW APPROACH

19 November, 2020

0.007k

October Transport, Shipping & Port News

4 November, 2020

0.006k

Quarterly Shipping Newsletter by Interlegal – Q4-2020

2 November, 2020

0.006k

Recourse and subrogation in Ukraine: what should be taken into account?

30 October, 2020

0.003k

FOB delivery of goods without bearing risks

13 October, 2020

0.004k

Recent updates in the “Safe Port” warranties treatment

30 July, 2020

0.005k

BIMCO PUBLISHES COVID-19 CREW CHANGE CLAUSE

25 June, 2020

0.004k

Ship arrest in Ukraine: new approaches

18 June, 2020

0.005k

Foreign judicial awards: towards enforcement via recognition

15 June, 2020

0.003k

Old Father Dnieper Waiting for His Ships

8 June, 2020

0.113k

Crop receipts: Ukrainian experience

22 May, 2020

0.003k

How to open permanent representative office in Ukraine: step-by-step guide

20 May, 2020

0.004k

US and EU sanctions for vessel passing the Kerch Strait

7 May, 2020

0.004k

Port-Landlord Pattern for Ukraine: to Become Real Lord of Land

17 April, 2020

0.004k

Force majeure: analyze your documents free of charge

10 April, 2020

0.003k

Collecting bunker debt – when urgency matters

7 April, 2020

0.003k

COVID-19 Worldwide Update

1 April, 2020

0.004k

Establishing business in Ukraine – key points

11 December, 2019

0.004k

Share pledge in Ukraine

0.003k

Injunctions Over the Right of Disposal of Ships

4 December, 2019

0.004k

A comprehensive guide to business immigration to Ukraine

2 December, 2019

0.004k

Due diligence of a company in Ukraine

25 November, 2019

0.004k

Annotation on amendments to Turkish port regulations

13 November, 2019

0.003k

Amendment of Ukrainian legislation relating to ballast waters inspection

17 September, 2019

0.004k

Quality dispute: How proper negotiations allow to keep the contract and commercial relations

6 August, 2019

0.002k

Opportunities in the Ukraine

10 July, 2019

0.002k

Establishing business in Ukraine – key points

22 June, 2019

0.006k

Endgame or a Path to Possibilities?

24 May, 2019

0.004k

International Convention on Arrest of Ships Enters Into Force in Turkey

22 May, 2019

0.009k

Transport, Shipping, Trade Web Course Video

24 April, 2019

0.003k

Law of Ukraine on Concessions: Pros and Contras before Voting

8 April, 2019

0.003k

Sanctions of Black Sea Region countries

28 February, 2019

0.004k

LMAA arbitration notice clause

27 February, 2019

0.004k

In the wake of Agroinvestgroup

24 February, 2019

0.003k

Public Stevedoring Companies Olvia and Kherson Concession Pilot Project: how it came, how it did and what is now

27 January, 2019

0.001k

Alert on Ukrainian martial law

30 November, 2018

0.005k

Contractual clauses which should not be omitted

29 October, 2018

0.004k

Amendments to GAFTA 48 & 49 standard forms

4 October, 2018

0.007k

PROHIBITED Import/Export

6 September, 2018

0.003k

Set on the right path

31 August, 2018

0.004k

A step in the right direction

27 August, 2018

0.005k

How to buy property in Cyprus as a non-resident

9 August, 2018

0.005k

Is Russia an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction?

30 July, 2018

0.003k

How to calculate foreign income tax correctly?

4 June, 2018

0.003k

Some issues of the vessel arrest in Romania

7 May, 2018

0.004k

How to defend yourself against actions of unfair shipowner under the Bareboat Charter

4 May, 2018

0.006k

EUROPE’S HOTSPOT FOR PORT INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT

3 May, 2018

0.006k

Ship arrest in Ukraine: updated regulations

26 April, 2018

0.004k

Statistics of case consideration at the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry

17 April, 2018

0.001k

Debt for ship repair: how to avoid problems?

4 April, 2018

0.003k

Turkish authorities impose complete ban on Crimea traffic

16 March, 2018

0.005k

Interview for the Project Cargo Weekly

22 February, 2018

0.005k

Law on Privatization: what about sea ports?

2 February, 2018

0.005k

F.A.Q.Shipping in Ukraine

25 January, 2018

0.005k

How to buy floating dock at the state without loss?

11 January, 2018

0.003k

How to save 194,000 USD and to gain friends?

0.005k

General average shadows. How to refund costs: 13 years after the disaster.

0.003k

Port dues in the framework of court proceedings

28 December, 2017

0.006k

Container carriage risks in today maritime trade

23 November, 2017

0.005k

The new Rules of the ICAC at the Ukrainian CCI: Overview of novelties

16 November, 2017

0.003k

How much does the port service market cost? Calculation attempt No. 1

18 October, 2017

0.005k

Mandatory insurance policy for vessels calling at Turkish ports

20 September, 2017

0.003k

Turkish Parliament has ratified the International Convention on the Arrest of Ships 1999

12 September, 2017

0.003k

The extension of time period for transit passage in Turkish straits

1 September, 2017

0.004k

Black Sea practice newsletter, April-June 2017

5 August, 2017

0.005k

Attachment of assets of non-residents during the enforcement of decisions and awards in Ukraine

13 July, 2017

0.001k

Lease, concession and privatization of ports in Ukraine

23 June, 2017

0.003k

The ICAC at the UCCI as one of qualified options of alternative disputes resolution

15 June, 2017

0.003k

Maritime law in Ukraine

17 May, 2017

0.004k

Notice of Readiness and Demurrage: Geographical Issues in the LMAA Arbitration Award

20 April, 2017

0.003k

Direct claim against liability insurer: is it real in Ukraine?

17 April, 2017

0.003k

Peculiarities of Ship arrest in some Black Sea jurisdictions

16 March, 2017

0.004k

Automatic application of LMAA Small Claims Procedure: to apply or not to apply?

22 February, 2017

0.007k

Check points при покупке яхты

14 February, 2017

0.004k

Black Sea practice newsletter, October-December 2016

23 January, 2017

0.005k

We’ll go another way. Tailor-made Voyage Charter for large metal product exporter

11 January, 2017

0.003k

500 thousand USD for cargo deterioration

0.003k

Caution: sanctions!

21 December, 2016

0.003k

How to turn an arbitral award into recovery of damages: experience of successful recognition of the arbitral award in Georgia

28 November, 2016

0.001k

Lease, concession and privatization of ports in Ukraine

25 November, 2016

0.005k

Interview for “Yurudychna Gazeta”

31 October, 2016

0.004k

Commercial Court Practice upon Ship Arrest in Ukraine

27 October, 2016

0.006k

Newsletter, July-September

1 October, 2016

0.013k

Legal and commercial aspects of ship repair activity

26 September, 2016

0.007k

Interlegal LegalCare for the trader: calm in a few cents per ton of cargo

20 September, 2016

0.006k

Trends in the Ukrainian maritime law service market

16 September, 2016

0.003k

Newsletter, July-September

1 September, 2016

0.006k

Ukrainian freight forwarder’s liability in international cargo transportation by road

29 August, 2016

0.004k

Port privatization as strategic goal is a must

16 August, 2016

0.005k

Enforcement of commercial (maritime) foreign arbitral awards in Ukraine

8 August, 2016

0.004k

Enforcement of commercial (maritime) foreign arbitral awards in Ukraine

6 August, 2016

0.005k

Cargo Shortage Fines – Turkey

1 August, 2016

0.004k

Interim measures in the process of enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards in Ukraine

10 April, 2016

0.002k

Occupation of the territory of Ukraine in focus of maritime law

4 April, 2016

0.005k

Once again on freight forwarding in Ukraine

1 April, 2016

0.006k

Lien as security of obligations in merchant shipping

24 February, 2016

0.003k

The third is the charm! Large bulker fleet operator vs. Shipowner and P&I

11 January, 2016

0.008k

The demurrage begins with…

0.006k

How to succeed with a demurrage claim or “not to shot yourself in the foot”

9 December, 2015

0.003k

What a Foreign Buyer Should Know about Export of Goods from Ukraine – Customs Clearance not Completed

19 October, 2015

0.002k

How sea-going vessels are arrested in Ukraine without arrest: absurdist theatre

6 October, 2015

0.003k

Sanctions & liability for Calling at Crimean ports: update – August 2015

17 September, 2015

0.005k

International Forum on Seafarers Education, Training and Crewing

10 September, 2015

0.011k

Jurisdictions of Black Sea countries: crisis aggravates

23 August, 2015

0.008k

Carriers’ and forwarders’ responsibility. Why you should keep an eye on it in Ukrainian business realia?

17 August, 2015

0.002k

Sanctions & liability for Calling at Crimean ports: update

17 July, 2015

0.003k

Force-Majeure: practical legal consequences

25 June, 2015

0.005k

EU-Ukraine Association Agreement -chase has started

23 March, 2015

0.003k

Setoff of Mutual Claims in Arbitration Proceedings

26 February, 2015

0.003k

Everything you say may be used against you, or what does the term «Without prejudice» mean

25 February, 2015

0.003k

Force-Majeure: Legislative Novelties in Ukraine

23 February, 2015

0.005k

Maritime Law

10 February, 2015

0.005k

Customs Valuation of Goods Imported to Ukraine: Practical & Legal Issues

1 December, 2014

0.003k

The Problems and perspectives of the salvage on the Danube River

26 November, 2014

0.008k

Ukrainе – EU Association Agreement – in focus Trade, Maritime and Customs

24 November, 2014

0.004k

Wrong Arbitration Clause Can Bring in Winning Award Lie Waste

7 November, 2014

0.003k

Force majeure with regard to service providers’ liability (Ukrainian practice)

4 November, 2014

0.003k

Crimean Ports: Now and After

30 September, 2014

0.005k

International Commercial Arbitration and Maritime Arbitration in Ukraine in 2013

8 September, 2014

0.005k

Arrest of vessels in Black sea countries

7 September, 2014

0.003k

General view on service providers’ liability in Ukraine

2 September, 2014

0.004k

Crimean Ports: Possible Solutions

1 July, 2014

0.005k

Property rights to be protected in Crimea: how and when?

30 June, 2014

0.003k

Maritime law in Ukraine

0.005k

Ports in disputed Crimea could lose cargo to their Kiev-loyal rivals

20 May, 2014

0.005k

International Commercial Arbitration and Maritime Arbitration in Ukraine in 2013

15 May, 2014

0.003k

CRIMEA AND MARITIME SECTOR: STORY TO BE CONTINUED

12 May, 2014

0.005k

Maritime arbitration: why mainly London?

29 April, 2014

0.008k

Changing shape of eastern Europe

25 April, 2014

0.005k

P&I Tips

24 April, 2014

0.007k

Crimean Kaleidoscope (Recent business & legal developments)

4 April, 2014

0.033k

“Nationalization” and other “legal” developments in Crimea

26 March, 2014

0.007k

And Ships of Every Flag Shall Come?

17 March, 2014

0.004k

Possessory lien on cargo in the Black Sea: how to do it in Ukraine

14 March, 2014

0.005k

Ukraine strives to control transshipment in Kerch Strait

12 February, 2014

0.031k

Non-conformity of the data about cargos on board of the sea-going vessel and master’s responsibility

29 January, 2014

0.003k

New Procedure on Taking Security Measures

28 January, 2014

0.003k

Winter does not come suddenly: maritime industry should be prepared

18 December, 2013

0.003k

M/V “LACONIC” was arrested in the port of Illyichevsk because of collision

13 December, 2013

0.003k

Registration of shipping lines: same course, new lines

4 December, 2013

0.005k

Sudden Winter

30 November, 2013

0.003k

Tips on enforcement of foreign arbitral awards against state-owned companies in Ukraine

27 November, 2013

0.005k

Ballast mayhem in Ukrainian ports: end of an era?

0.006k

Liens on cargo: the nuances of Ukrainian law

20 November, 2013

0.003k

PORT DUES AND TARRIFFS IN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE

13 November, 2013

0.01k

Forwarder’s Liability for Cargo Loss and its Insurance in Ukraine – Part II

6 November, 2013

0.006k

UKRAINE: Tips for enforcement of arbitral awards in maritime disputes

31 October, 2013

0.004k

Forwarder’s Liability for Cargo Loss and its Insurance in Ukraine PART 1

29 October, 2013

0.004k

Vessel arrest and detention in Georgia. Part 3

25 September, 2013

0.003k

ACCORDING TO ARBITRATION – UNTIL YOU PAY YOU ARE NOT IN DISPUTE

20 September, 2013

0.003k

Vessel arrest and detention in Georgia. Part 2

18 September, 2013

0.008k

Shipowner beware: undeclared ship stores

11 September, 2013

0.005k

Vessel arrest and detention in Georgia. Part 1

4 September, 2013

0.005k

Detention of ships and cargo by port authorities

21 August, 2013

0.007k

Open international registry on the horizon

31 July, 2013

0.005k

Out-of-gauge adventures

26 July, 2013

0.011k

Port industry reawakens with Law on Sea Ports

17 July, 2013

0.004k

Port Development Reform in Ukraine

1 July, 2013

0.005k

Seven Countries, Seven Sets of Rules

27 June, 2013

0.006k

Ukrainian shipbuilding: awaiting a renaissance

5 June, 2013

0.004k

Freight-forwarder liability at a glance

29 May, 2013

0.038k

Enforcement of foreign court interim decisions in Ukraine not so simple

8 May, 2013

0.032k

Arrest of ships: complexity remains

17 April, 2013

0.004k

REFORMING UKRAINE: New law privatizes ports

16 April, 2013

0.005k

Maritime & intermodal development in Ukraine: A real reform

10 April, 2013

0.004k

Is Ukraine becoming friendly jurisdiction?

8 February, 2013

0.004k

Costa Concordia: the last cruise

11 January, 2013

0.004k

Up to date Global Challenges

18 December, 2012

0.008k

Shiparrested practical guide

4 December, 2012

0.006k

Sea ports оf Ukraine are to be: in concession.

26 November, 2012

0.003k

Arbitration Watch Gafta case

20 November, 2012

0.005k

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments & Arbitration Awards in Ukraine

8 November, 2012

0.033k

MARINE INSURANCE AND LEGAL PRACTICE

6 November, 2012

0.004k

1st Black Sea Port&Shipping

29 October, 2012

0.027k

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments & Arbitration Awards in Ukraine

25 October, 2012

0.006k

Pirates of the Ukrainian Sea

28 September, 2012

0.004k

If at first you don’t succeed…

10 September, 2012

0.004k

Ukraine paves the way for privatization

26 June, 2012

0.031k

Law on Sea Ports of Ukraine: First Impressions

0.055k

Ukraine: ILO Announces Lists of Licenses and Permits Needed for Dredging Works

19 June, 2012

0.003k

Forwarder’s Liability as a Consignee under Bill of Lading – a Ukrainian Perspective

16 February, 2012

0.003k

Vision before strategy

28 November, 2011

0.003k

Legal life in… Ukraine

5 September, 2011

0.034k

Ukraine: ILO Announces Lists of Licenses and Permits Needed for Dredging Works

18 May, 2011

0.004k

Defective Arbitration Clause, Invalidity of Arbitration Agreement and Award.

11 April, 2011