+380952312525
Law Firm

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

Sign up for a consultation

Interlegal Shipping digest Q4 2023

8 January, 2024

9

Interlegal Shipping digest Q4 2023

Charting Uncharted Legal Seas: The Afra Oak Verdict and Its Implications for the Application of Hague Visby Article IV(2)(a) in Navigational Disputes

In the intricate tapestry of maritime law, where the ebb and flow of legal precedents shape the shores of judicial decision-making, the case of Mercuria Energy Trading Pte v. Raphael Cotoner Investments Ltd (The Afra Oak) [2023] EWHC 2978 (Comm) emerges as a pivotal landmark.

In the case, the court examined whether a shipowner can invoke Article IV(2)(a) of the Hague-Visby Rules as a defence when the master of a chartered vessel, contravening the charterer’s directives, incurs a loss to the charterer. This pivotal issue emerged in The Afra Oak case, with the facts being relatively straightforward.

On February 7, 2019, the charterers directed the vessel’s owners to navigate to Spore EOPL for further instructions. However, on February 9, the master chose to anchor in Indonesian territorial waters while awaiting further orders, believing it to be a more convenient anchorage. This decision led to the vessel’s detainment by the Indonesian Navy on February 12, 2019, and the subsequent arrest of the master. The anchoring was deemed a violation of the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982 and Indonesian law, resulting in a criminal conviction of the master in October 2019.

The charterer sought damages from the owner, alleging that the vessel was unseaworthy due to the master’s inadequate knowledge regarding anchoring in territorial waters, and that the master’s actions breached their employment instructions. The arbitration tribunal dismissed the unseaworthiness claim but agreed that the master had breached the employment instructions. However, the tribunal also determined that the owner was entitled to rely on Article IV(2)(a) of the Hague Rules, incorporated into the charterparty, which provides a defence for losses or damages arising from acts, neglect, or defaults of the master in navigation or ship management.

The charterer appealed, arguing that the tribunal erred in applying Article IV(2)(a) in this case. Their argument was based on the House of Lords decision in The Hill Harmony [2001] 1 AC 638, where the owner was not permitted to use the same defence after the master chose a different route than the one recommended by the charterer. However, Sir Nigel Teare distinguished the present case from The Hill Harmony, emphasizing that in The Afra Oak, the master’s failure to comply with the charterer’s order was due to poor navigation and seamanship, in contrast to the commercial decision in The Hill Harmony.

Sir Teare concluded that The Hill Harmony does not establish that the exception for a navigational fault is unavailable when there is a failure to follow an employment order. He noted that while in cases like The Hill Harmony, where the master’s decision is not due to navigation or seamanship error but rather a commercial choice, the defence under Article IV(2)(a) may not be applicable. However, in cases like The Afra Oak, where the decision is linked to poor navigation or seamanship, the defence might be valid. This judgment is significant for shipowners, especially when operating in regions with ambiguous territorial waters, as it suggests that navigational mistakes resulting in charterer loss could be defended under the Rules, provided they are successfully incorporated into the charterparty.

Mastering the Complexities of Damage Recovery in English Law: Tracing the Evolution from Hadley v Baxendale to The Sanix Ace in Commercial Dispute Jurisprudence

In the intricate tapestry of English law, the principle of damage recovery stands as a pillar of equitable justice, particularly in the sphere of commercial disputes. This principle, steeped in jurisprudential wisdom, is predicated on the notion that only substantial damages, those which represent a genuine pecuniary loss, are recoverable. It’s a doctrine that resonates with the pragmatic ethos of commerce, ensuring that the gears of trade and contractual engagements turn smoothly, unencumbered by frivolous or speculative claims.

At the heart of this doctrine lies the rule established in the landmark case of Hadley v Baxendale (1854). This case, a cornerstone in the edifice of English contract law, serves as a beacon, guiding the assessment of damages in contract disputes. The rule, eloquently articulated in this judicial pronouncement, bifurcates the recoverable damages into two distinct categories: those which arise naturally from the breach (i.e., direct or general damages) and those which, while not naturally arising, were reasonably contemplated by both parties at the time the contract was formed (i.e., indirect or consequential damages).

In dissecting the rule of Hadley v Baxendale, it becomes evident that the English legal system embraces a nuanced and calculated approach to damage recovery. The rule does not merely serve as a measure of loss; rather, it encapsulates a balanced assessment of foreseeability and causation. It demands that the damages claimed must not only be substantiated by a tangible loss but also must have been within the contemplative horizon of the contracting parties.

This judicious approach ensures that the ambit of recoverable damages is neither overly expansive nor unduly restrictive. It aligns with the commercial realities where parties seek a predictable and fair redressal mechanism for breaches of contract. The rule necessitates that parties, at the time of contracting, exercise foresight and delineate the potential scope of liability, thereby fostering a sense of responsibility and circumspection in commercial dealings.

Another Cornerstone of damages recovery in English law stands in compensatory damages recovery principle this principle is meticulously designed to restore the injured party to the position they would have occupied had the breach or tortious act not occurred. It is not aimed at punishment or unjust enrichment, but at equitable restitution.

Compensatory damages are intended to offer monetary reparation for loss or injury suffered due to another’s breach of duty or violation of rights. This concept is ingrained in the notion of fairness and justice, ensuring that the aggrieved party is duly compensated for actual losses or damages sustained.

It encapsulates both pecuniary (financial) losses such as loss of earnings or medical expenses, and, in certain cases, non-pecuniary losses like pain and suffering.

In contract law, compensatory damages are awarded to indemnify the party not in breach for the loss of bargain caused by the breach. The calculation of these damages is typically based on the expectation measure, which aims to put the claimant in the position they would have been in if the contract had been properly performed. This measure includes direct losses and, as established in Hadley v Baxendale, foreseeable indirect losses.

Additionally, explicating the aforementioned rule, it should be said that the claimant will only be able to recover the damages which he has himself suffered. However, this ostensibly straightforward principle is imbued with layers of complexity and nuances, particularly when one considers the dynamic and sometimes unpredictable nature of English law in recent jurisprudence.

Indeed, it is all not that simple. Recent cases, such as The Sanix Ace and Fehn Heaven, illustrate the evolving landscape of damage recovery in English law, where judicial decisions have occasionally deviated from the traditional trajectory. These cases highlight scenarios where the courts have grappled with intricate and unprecedented circumstances, leading to decisions that some might perceive as unpredictable or deviating from established principles.

In The Sanix Ace, for instance, the complexities involved in determining the actual loss suffered by the claimant, and how it aligns with the principle of the party bearing only their own losses, raised intriguing legal questions. Similarly, in Fehn Heaven, the court’s interpretation and application of established principles in a novel context further underscored the dynamic nature of legal reasoning in this sphere.

In the notable case of The Sanix Ace, the court explored the intricacies of damage recovery in charterparty agreements, shedding light on the rights of a charterer vis-?-vis the shipowner. Central to this discourse is the principle that where the charterer holds the property or an immediate right to possession of the goods, any loss to this proprietary or possessory interest due to the shipowner’s breach warrants compensation.

Crucially, in The Sanix Ace, it was elucidated that the charterer’s entitlement to recover full damages for the loss is unaffected by the risk-bearing status of the carriage. This implies that even if the goods were not being carried at the charterer’s risk, any diminution in their value due to damage entitles the charterer to full damages from the shipowner. The rationale behind this is straightforward yet profound: upon damage, the goods inherently lose value, resulting in an immediate loss to the charterer.

An intriguing aspect highlighted in this case is the irrelevance of the charterer’s means to mitigate pecuniary loss post-receipt of the damaged goods. Whether the charterer has subsequent contracts of sale or purchase that enable it to recoup the price from a buyer or receive reimbursement from a seller does not impede its right to full damages from the shipowner. This principle is rooted in the concept of res inter alios acta – a legal doctrine suggesting that these subsequent recoveries are transactions involving third parties and should not influence the assessment of damages against the shipowner The court further clarified that such recovery from third parties affects only “the ultimate destination of the damages” once recovered. This means that while the charterer would need to account for these recoveries to the third parties involved, it does not diminish their right to full damages from the shipowner. Moreover, unless special circumstances are notified, the right to recovery from a third party is too remote to impact the damages recovered from the shipowner.

In conclusion, the exploration of damage recovery principles in English law, as exemplified by cases like the Sanix Ace and Fehn Heaven, illuminates the sophisticated and nuanced approach the legal system adopts in addressing commercial disputes. The doctrine of compensatory damages, with its emphasis on restoring the injured party to their pre-loss position, and the intricate considerations involved in cases of charterparty agreements, highlight the delicate balance the law maintains between fairness and practicality. These cases not only reaffirm the fundamental tenets of contract and tort law but also underscore the dynamic nature of legal interpretation in the face of complex commercial realities. As English law continues to evolve, it reflects an enduring commitment to justly addressing the multifaceted aspects of damage recovery, ensuring that the principles of restitution and equity remain at the forefront of judicial decision-making in the realm of commercial disputes.

Shedding Light on the Shadows: IMO’s Landmark Resolution to Curb ‘Dark Fleet’ Operations and Uphold Maritime Integrity

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), in a momentous assembly, ratified a resolution that provides guidance to nations on thwarting the fraudulent and perilous maneuvers of an elusive fleet, often termed as “dark” or “shadow” ships, which are implicated in unlawful activities.

This resolution elicited objections from Iran and Russia, countries currently under the yoke of Western and US sanctions targeting their oil and shipping industries. These nations notably deploy “dark fleet” tankers for the transport of energy commodities.

Efforts to restrict the scope of the resolution, to encompass only those sanctions ratified by the United Nations General Assembly, as opposed to those imposed unilaterally by nations, were ultimately unsuccessful.

Originating from the IMO’s Legal Committee earlier in the year, amidst escalating concerns about hazardous practices by tankers, the resolution pays particular attention to the abundant ship-to-ship transfers of oil and petroleum products occurring in international waters, beyond the purview of port state control.

While ship-to-ship transfers are a standard procedure, the ones conducted for the evasion of sanctions in international waters are deficient in regulatory supervision and pose significant environmental threats.

The ratified resolution “strongly encourages” member states and all pertinent stakeholders to champion measures to obstruct illicit operations in the maritime sector by the ‘dark’ or ‘shadow’ fleet. This encapsulates, for the first time, a definition of what constitutes such a vessel.

The criteria include: conducting unsafe operations in violation of international regulations and best practices, deliberately evading inspections by flag and port states, failing to maintain adequate liability insurance, avoiding commercial screenings or inspections, lacking a transparent corporate governance policy ensuring crew and environmental welfare, and intentionally adopting measures to elude ship detection, such as deactivating vessel-tracking systems or obscuring identity.

Though the recommendations are not legally binding, they delineate a range of best practices pertinent to safety and environmental conventions. This encompasses the requirement for vessels to report all ship-to-ship transfers to their flag states and the introduction of intensified inspections at ports for ships suspected of disabling their tracking systems.

Both state governments and marine service providers, including insurers and shipowners, are implored to conduct workshops to elevate awareness regarding the “dark fleet,” best practices, and due diligence.

The legal committee is currently probing into the issue of fraudulent flag registries, the misuse of the IMO numbering system, and counterfeit recognised organisations linked to dark fleet operations.

The general assembly, convening biennially, is concluding its 10-day session in London on 06 of December.

Additionally, the IMO has passed another resolution denouncing Russia’s disruptive actions affecting navigation in the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the Kerch Strait, including the unlawful appropriation of maritime and port infrastructure in Ukrainian territories under occupation.

This comprehensive resolution chronicles the ramifications of Russia’s annexation of Crimea since 2014 and its incursion into Ukraine since 2022 on the global maritime supply chains and shipping.

Bulk cargo deterioration: maritime claims and arrest specifications

Uncertainty is still ruling in the market of international freight transportation of Ukraine. The war caused market upheaval in the diesel fuel transportation sector, and currently it is brought to Ukraine mainly through the Danube river ports.

It will be appropriate to talk about case specifications related to deterioration of bulk cargoes, certainly, based on one of Interlegal cases.

Case circumstances are quite interesting: the client, although not Gaius Julius Caesar, played many roles in this transportation, acting both as the Charterer, the Cargo Owner, and the Ultimate Consignee (as per bill of lading).

The Client chartered a vessel to transport its cargo (ULSD, or Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel). In the process of discharge, water residues were detected in the pipeline and in the tanks.

General losses included the following: losses caused by cargo damage, losses caused by vehicle idle stay and losses resulted from surveys.

Interlegal law team quickly got involved in the case and developed the following action plan:

1. Detention of the vessel by the Harbor Master;
2. Vessel arrest;
3. Filing a claim to the Shipowner;
4.1. Entry into dispute settlement agreement
or
4.2. Filing a lawsuit to the court.

Until the last moment, it was not clear whether it would be possible to settle the dispute, or whether long-term court proceedings would be initiated for several years.

And this is directly related to the following specifications:

1. Technical specifications of vessels

A vessel carrying diesel fuel has two manifolds, i.e. two pipelines, one for loading fuel, the other for its discharge.

If the tank is airtight, there is minimum chance of damage to the cargo at the stage of loading and discharging operations and sea transportation.

2. Cargo chemical specifications

Water ingress is the most common form of damage to any cargo during sea transportation. Even in view of technical specifications of tankers, as we mentioned in the previous clause, such a situation is possible.

However, the density of water and the density of diesel fuel are different: later liquids get stratified. This phenomenon is more positive than negative, since the water can be pumped out and the cargo can be saved.

3. Direct transshipment

In the Danube river ports, there is no technical possibility to accumulate cargo; therefore, transshipment is carried out directly from vessel to trucks.

4. Number of counterparties

Although the Client was the Consignee as per bill of lading, in fact the cargo had already been sold to other counterparties. During case proceedings, it turned out that some counterparties have also already resold the cargo to other companies.

5. Rapid distribution throughout the territory of Ukraine

With regards to direct transshipment and trade scheme, the trucks are supplied by the Client’s counterparties, and after leaving the port territory, the cargo is delivered in various directions throughout Ukraine. In fact, the Consignee as per bill of lading loses any control over it.

6. Mixing with other goods

Counterparts reload cargo from motor vehicles into tanks of their bases. Usually, they already contain the product; therefore, the fuel gets mixed. It means impossibility of further determining the exact amount of damaged cargo and the amount of caused damage.

What happened in fact?

Position of the Cargo Owner:

– in case of water penetration into diesel fuel, indeed, if you conduct a quality analysis, quality will be reduced. It shows that at the stage of discharge, the Cargo Owner actually receives cargo that does not meet quality specifications;
– since the cargo has already been sold to other contractors, whose vehicles are being loaded, the Cargo Owner actually supplies to its contractors cargo that does not meet quality specifications;
– low-quality cargo immediately awakes a large number of claims from many counterparties to one Cargo Owner. Claims are related both to quality of the cargo and idle stay of trucks in the port;
– in order to mitigate losses, the cargo owner was forced to reduce the cargo cost and to reimburse all losses related to idle stay.

Position of the Shipowner:

– The Shipowner is aware of cargo chemical specifications and understands the possibility of further stratification. Therefore, the Shipowner is 100% sure that the amount of cargo damaged in the process of discharge and the amount of cargo damaged after discharge will be significantly different, namely towards decreasing the amount of damaged cargo;
– in order to accurately determine the volume of damaged cargo, the Shipowner requires a joint survey (which is absolutely impossible);
– ship arrest is completely legal, and each day of the vessel idle stay causes significant losses to the Shipowner;

Through long-term negotiations, the Parties nevertheless managed to reach a compromise and to enter into dispute settlement agreement. Having worked on such an interesting, albeit complex case, Interlegal singled out a rather simple, but effective list of recommendations for the Cargo Owner:

– To leave control over the cargo. In particular, to look for a place where the entire volume of cargo will be stored until the dispute is settled. All storage costs and fines from counterparties may be charged to the Shipowner in the future;
– Involvement of surveyors in the process of discharge in order to establish the fact, volume and cause of damage and understanding the need for a joint survey after discharge;
– Involvement of lawyers from the very beginning for the proper formation of the evidence base and taking security measures.

Interlegal Shipping digest Q4 2023

Author
Karyna Gorovaya
Associated Partner, Head of Transport Shipping dept
Consultation
Taras Dragan
Associate attorney
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

0.076k

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

0.009k

What errors should be avoided while entering into CIF contracts?

15 December, 2023

0.017k

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

0.009k

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

31 October, 2023

0.004k

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

0.001k

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

0.003k

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

0.004k

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

0.027k

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

0.028k

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

0.006k

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

0.006k

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

0.004k

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

0.1k

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

0.004k

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

0.004k

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

0.006k

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

0.001k

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

0.01k

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

0.031k

“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

0.029k

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

29 January, 2014

0.002k

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

0.009k

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

0.036k

Enforcement of foreign court interim decisions in Ukraine not so simple

8 May, 2013

0.03k

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

0.004k

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

8 November, 2012

0.031k

MARINE INSURANCE AND LEGAL PRACTICE

6 November, 2012

0.004k

1st Black Sea Port&Shipping

29 October, 2012

0.025k

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

0.03k

Law on Sea Ports of Ukraine: First Impressions

0.053k

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