{"id":43732,"date":"2024-08-05T12:39:07","date_gmt":"2024-08-05T12:39:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/?post_type=press_releases&p=43732"},"modified":"2024-08-05T12:39:29","modified_gmt":"2024-08-05T12:39:29","slug":"aga-partners-successfully-represented-client-against-owners-in-london-maritime-arbitration","status":"publish","type":"press_releases","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/press-releases\/aga-partners-successfully-represented-client-against-owners-in-london-maritime-arbitration\/","title":{"rendered":"AGA Partners successfully represented Client against Owners in London maritime arbitration"},"content":{"rendered":"

AGA Partners successfully represented a Ukrainian trading company in maritime London-based arbitral proceedings over a claim for damages against the Owners.<\/strong><\/p>\n

During the performance of a Charterparty the dispute arose between the Parties as to the liability of the Client for alleged detention accrued on at Sulina anchorage (Romania), whilst the Vessel was waiting for her passage to Ukrainian loading ports of Danube. The Owners claimed over USD 200,000.00 of detention from the Client.<\/p>\n

At Turkish port of discharge, the Owners exercised lien on Cargo of the Client to secure their detention claim. The lien was successfully protested by the Client, but it caused the Client\u2019s buyer of the Cargo to reject it and terminate the relevant contract for sale. The Owners\u2019 lien caused damages to the Client for a large sum. The Client referred the matter to a London-based maritime arbitration.<\/p>\n

The crux of the dispute related to the legality of the Owners\u2019 claim for the detention allegedly accrued on at Sulina anchorage, which the Owners enforced by way of the lien at Turkish port of discharge. The position of the Client was simple \u2013 the Owners possessed no valid claim for the detention because Sulina anchorage was not a usual waiting place for Ukrainian Danube ports. The lien was also invalid and caused consequential damages to the Client, which had to be reimbursed.<\/p>\n

Various pieces of evidence, including the one collected from port authorities, were submitted to assist the Tribunal in reaching the right decision at the case.<\/p>\n

After careful consideration of the case, the tribunal satisfied the Client\u2019s claim finding that Sulina anchorage was not a usual waiting place for Ukrainian ports of Danube and the Owners\u2019 detention claim with the lien were both unlawful. The Tribunal satisfied the Client\u2019s claim for damages so suffered as a result of the unlawful actions of the Owners.<\/p>\n

The AGA Partners\u2019 team was represented by partners Ivan Kasynyuk and Iryna Moroz, as well as senior associate Yurii Bedenko.<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","class_list":["post-43732","press_releases","type-press_releases","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/press_releases\/43732","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/press_releases"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/press_releases"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43732"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}