Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

The Legal 500 Hall of Fame Icon The Legal 500 Hall of Fame highlights individuals who have received constant praise by their clients for continued excellence. The Hall of Fame highlights, to clients, the law firm partners who are at the pinnacle of the profession. In Europe, Middle East and Africa, the criteria for entry is to have been recognised by The Legal 500 as one of the elite leading lawyers for seven consecutive years. These partners are highlighted below and throughout the editorial.
Click here for more details

Ukraine > Legal Developments > Dispute resolution > Law firm and leading lawyer rankings

Editorial

Press releases and law firm thought leadership

This page is dedicated to keeping readers informed of the latest news and thought leadership articles from law firms across the globe.

If your firm wishes to publish press releases or articles, please contact Shehab Khurshid on +44 (0) 207 396 5689 or shehab.khurshid@legalease.co.uk

 

AVELLUM successfully represents client’s interests in GAFTA arbitration

January 2019 - Dispute resolution. Legal Developments by Avellum.

More articles by this firm.

AVELLUM successfully represented the client's interests in GAFTA arbitration in the dispute with a Swiss trading company.

As the result of 8 months long arbitral proceedings, the tribunal satisfied demands of our client in full, for a total amount of over USD200,000.

AVELLUM successfully represented Swiss Company in GAFTA arbitration

December 2018 - Dispute resolution. Legal Developments by Avellum.

More articles by this firm.

AVELLUM represented a Swiss Company (“Claimant”) in GAFTA arbitration dispute under CIF sale contract with an Egyptian company (“Respondent”) regarding compensation of damages in the form of demurrage and interest for the late payment for the goods.

Through these proceedings, AVELLUM established a new practice of representing clients in GAFTA arbitration disputes, which are resolved by a sole arbitrator.

The dispute concerned correct calculation of laytime and responsibility for demurrage. The calculation of the incurred demurrage depended on who is responsible for the suspension of discharge of the goods.

While deciding upon this case, the decisive factors were specific acts and instructions of each party, since the party who gave direct instructions to suspend the discharge will be held liable. It should be noted that in the present case, the Claimant had not instructed to suspend the discharge, but did warn the Respondent about such consequences, which may incur if the Respondent fails to provide the payment.

After analysing all factual circumstances of the case, the arbitrator held that the discharge was suspended by the instructions of the Respondent, which misunderstood the situation, and, consequently, is liable for damages, which incurred thereafter.

This case once again demonstrates that in contracts governed by the English law, each word from the correspondence between the parties is important. Liability of the parties is established after overall examination of negotiations, correspondence, and acts of each party.

In his award, the arbitrator highlighted that despite the information provided in Statement of Facts (SOF), it was suspended by the Respondent and not the Claimant. Therefore, the arbitrator held the Respondent liable for demurrage incurred due to suspending the discharge. Additionally, the arbitrator obliged the Respondent to pay the Claimant the statutory interest for the late payment for the goods.

As a result, the arbitrator has awarded to satisfy the Claimant’s demand for the compensation of damages.

AVELLUM team was led by associates Dmytro Koval and Leila Kazimi, under the supervision of partners Ivan Kasynyuk and Iryna Moroz.

AVELLUM represented UK citizen in Supreme Court of Ukraine

November 2018 - Dispute resolution. Legal Developments by Avellum.

More articles by this firm.

AVELLUM represented UK citizen in Supreme Court dispute regarding return of wrongfully retained child to England.

AVELLUM successfully represented a UK citizen in the Supreme Court of Ukraine (“Supreme Court”) in a dispute regarding the return of a wrongfully retained child to England.

The judgement of the Supreme Court will bring a new approach to dispute resolution related to international child abduction and will become a judicial precedent in Ukraine. The Supreme Court provided the first-ever clarification on the procedure for dispute resolution related to international child abduction, application of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 25 October 1980 (“1980 Convention”), and interpretation of criteria for refusal to return a child to the state of permanent residence.

The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine filed a claim in early 2013. Over the last years, this case was repeatedly reviewed by Ukrainian courts of all instances, including the Supreme Court.

AVELLUM prepared a cassation appeal and a request seeking the renewal of the term of cassation appeal that were filed on behalf of the client with the High Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Cases in early 2017. However, due to the judicial reform, it was late August 2018 when the new Supreme Court made its final decision.

Thus, the Supreme Court has rightfully held that the primary focus of the above 1980 Convention is that one parent or family member cannot independently decide to change the child’s place of permanent residence. The Court also noted that the child’s place of permanent residence is of major importance in restoring the status quo, since the illegal removal or retention of the child violates the child’s rights and interests, as well as the right (custody right) of the parent without whose consent the child was taken from the country of habitual residence.

The Supreme Court also highlighted that when considering the issue on returning the child to the home state, the issue of defining a person who will have custody rights in the future is not resolved. The issue of custody rights to be granted to one or both parents falls within the jurisdiction of competent authorities of the child’s country of permanent residence before the relocation.

The Supreme Court also provided official interpretation as to the application of Articles 8, 12, and 13 of the 1980 Convention, thus, shaping a new perspective on this issue in Ukraine.

AVELLUM team was led by associate Oleksandr Gubin under the supervision of partner Iryna Moroz.

Interview with...

Law firm partners and practice heads explain how their firms are adapting to clients' changing needs

International comparative guides

Giving the in-house community greater insight to the law and regulations in different jurisdictions.

Select Practice Area

GC Powerlist -
Europe