News

Ceto Shipping Corporation v Savory Shipping Inc (The “Victor 1”) [2023] EWHC 2995 (Comm)

There is certain bitter irony for a defendant when a claimant, who has spent a small fortune in legal proceedings against that defendant, turns around and pleads poverty when that defendant seeks security for costs.

Such circumstances were considered in “The Victor 1”, where the Commercial Court considered a defendant’s security for costs application against a claimant which appeared, on paper, not to have any assets, but which seemed capable of funding litigation with seemingly bottomless pockets in numerous jurisdictions.[1]

Under CPR 25.13, if the “claimant is a company or other body (whether incorporated inside or outside Great Britain) and there is reason to believe that it will be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if ordered to do so”, then the defendant will have a prima facie entitlement to security for costs.  However, the courts will weigh this entitlement up against key considerations of justice.

[1] Ceto Shipping Corporation v Savory Shipping Inc [2023] EWHC 2995 (Comm).

245 Park Member v. HNA Group International, No. 23-842-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 8, 2024)

Enforcement of judgments against intangible assets like membership interests in US LLCs can be difficult for creditors. Often, all they get is a limited charging order that gives them the right to distributions – which might not be effective in many cases.

However, the recent judgment from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in 245 Park Member v. HNA Group International, No. 23-842-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 8, 2024) may make enforcement easier against interests in Delaware and other LLCs easier, confirming that they can be turned over directly to the creditor.

Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC:

On February 21, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a decisive opinion in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC, 601 U.S. 65 (2024), upholding the enforceability of choice-of-law provisions, marking a significant development in maritime law.

The case involved a dispute over an insurance claim for a damaged vessel, which evolved into a complex legal analysis of contractual agreements and pinning state versus federal law. The following sections detail the factual background, judicial proceedings, and broader implications of this case, shedding light on its impact on maritime commerce and legal practices.

London Arbitration 3/24 concerned a voyage concluded under a booking note dated 5 October 2021.   As readers will be aware, a booking note is issued to a shipper who books space for cargo onboard a ship. In Electrosteel Castings v Scan-Trans Shipping and Chartering, Gross J stated a booking note is intended to “embody the contract” agreed between the parties and “to continue in existence as the contract between them.”[i] This position is supported by the terms specified in the widely used CONLINEBOOKING note which states “[i]t is hereby agreed that this Contract shall be performed subject to the terms contained on Page 1 and 2 hereof which shall prevail over any previous arrangements …”.[ii]

On 13 March 2024, after three years of negotiations, the European Parliament finally adopted the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), the first comprehensive statutory framework worldwide that regulates artificial intelligence systems.

A provisional agreement on the adoption of the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) has already been reached in December 2023. Now, the AI Act has been formally passed by the European Parliament.

When emails became popular in business in the 1990’s, to a large extent replacing faxes and letters by post, it was difficult to foresee how things could get any quicker. However, with the advent of social media into the fast-paced world of broking, and the arrival of WhatsApp, communication by email, it seemed, was just too slow.

WhatsApp messages are now regularly used for the negotiation of charterparties. However, the difficulties start when the charterparty falls apart. As many times as one party produces the messages as evidence of the contract, the other party argues that they are merely informal or unverifiable communications that should be given no value by a court or tribunal in considering contract formation.