AGA Partners

AGA Partners successfully represented the Australian trading company during the enforcement proceedings of arbitral award in Switzerland against the Swiss company for the sum of USD 250,000.00. The case concerned the enforcement of the award rendered by the arbitral tribunal seated in London. Together with local counselors, AGA Partners successfully enforced the award of tribunal against the debtor. The Client obtained full reimbursement of the damages awarded by the arbitral tribunal for the sum of USD 250,000.00 as well as recovery of the legal-assistance costs suffered by the Client. The AGA Partners’ team was represented by partner Iryna Moroz as well as senior associate Yurii Bedenko.  

AGA Partners are glad to share that we successfully represented a major Turkish agricultural holding in London arbitration against the UAE leading grain, wheat, and sunflower oil suppliers. The essence of the dispute and contractual terms of Buyers’ remedies The dispute arose from a CIF contract for the delivery of Ukrainian milling wheat. Upon arrival at the port of discharge, the goods were found to be non-compliant with the contract’s quality specifications, specifically in terms of protein content, moisture level, and test weight under the agreed ‘min-max’ indicators. Notably, the protein content fell short of the contractual requirement by 0.02% and was specified in the contract description. To protect the buyer's interests, the contract included security provisions allowing our Сlient to pay 95% of the value of the goods upon presentation of all contractual shipping documents and to withhold 5% of the payment if the delivered goods failed to meet the required specifications after the respective quality checking. Failing to reach an amicable solution, our Client justifiably refused to pay for the 5% value of the delivered goods due to their non-contractual quality and above referred contractual provision. Meanwhile, the sellers commenced arbitration and pursued a demand for a 5% payment and reimbursement of damages for the claimed demurrage. Arbitral award in favour of the Сlient Bringing this case to arbitration, the sellers argued that the discrepancies in quality specifications were within acceptable commercial trade norms and that the goods were still contractual. They also sought compensation for demurrage, alleging that the buyers were unable to discharge the Vessel within the laytime prescribed in the Contract due to delays on the buyers’ part. However, the arbitrators upheld the Clients’ claim because the sellers breached the condition to deliver the goods of contractual quality, which entitled the buyers to withhold the payment for the 5% value of the goods with reference to the respective contractual provision. The Тribunal also pointed out that when purchasing goods afloat, it is reasonable to assume that buyers would like to ensure the proper quality of the goods and may provide for the terms of the payment of a certain part of the goods only if their contractual quality is confirmed. Additionally, the arbitrators found that whereas the protein was specified in the contract description, any breach of it, even if it did not reach 0.02% by the contractual indicator, was not slight but instead a serious breach of the contract. On this ground, the tribunal awarded the Client damages of around USD 230,000.00, together with the compounded interest and compensation of arbitration costs. Furthermore, through meticulous analysis and presentation of evidence, we successfully proved that the buyers discharged the goods within the agreed laytime. The only reason for the delay in discharging was the late tender of shipping documents by the sellers, and the buyers should not take responsibility for the sellers’ breach. The AGA Partners’ team was represented by partner Ivan Kasynyuk together with the associates Anastasiia Shevchuk and Maksym Fesenko.  

AGA Partners successfully represented a Turkish trading company (Buyer and/or Client) before a London arbitration in a multimillion dispute against a German company (Seller), which arose out of sale contract. The dispute concerned the Seller’s refusal to supply 45,000 MT of Argentinean goods into Middle East, inflicting thereby significant damages on the Buyers. The Buyer referred the matter to London arbitration. In its defense, the Seller argued that there was no binding contract between the parties because they had not exchanged the signed copies. With reference to applicable English law, the Buyer argued that both parties duly consented to enter into the contract and that, in any event, an exchange of signed copies was not required for the contract to be valid and binding. The proceedings lasted for more than two years. After careful consideration of voluminous case materials, the Tribunal sustained the Client’s claim and found that there was a valid and binding contract between the parties. The Tribunal also found that the Seller’s refusal to perform constituted a repudiatory breach of the contract, which entitled the Buyer to terminate it and claim damages. The AGA Partners’ team was represented by partners Ivan Kasynyuk and Iryna Moroz as well as by senior associates Ievgen Boiarskyi and Yurii Bedenko.  

AGA Partners successfully represented a Ukrainian trading company in London arbitration related to the claim for recovery of the damages for the sum of USD 200,000.00. During the performance of the sale contract, a buyer refused to perform the contract due to a rapid change in the market price of the goods. The buyer unilaterally canceled the contract, refusing further cooperation with the Client (acting as the seller). The Client filed a claim to the arbitral tribunal in London to reimburse the damages suffered. The damages comprised the difference in the market price of the goods. The crux of the dispute related to the illegal refusal of the buyer to perform the contract and its illegal cancellation of the contract. The buyer argued that the contract was not concluded because it was not signed, and it lacked some additional formalities for the contract to be concluded as per English law. To the contrary, the Client argued that the Parties concluded a binding contract, arguing that signature and other formalities were not necessary for the contract to be valid. After careful consideration of the case, the tribunal satisfied the Client’s claim, finding that the parties concluded a binding contract, which the buyer unlawfully terminated based on far-fetched grounds, that is, a change in the market price of the goods. What is more, the arbitral award was successfully enforced against the buyer. The AGA Partners’ team was represented by partners Ivan Kasynyuk as well as senior associate Yurii Bedenko.  

This article truly demonstrates how interconnected our world has become and that Ukrainian legislation may influence on the outcome of the cases and proceedings before the foreign courts of the highest instance. There is a publicly and openly available judgement of the High Court of Justice rendered by Mr Justice Mostyn in February 2023, available at the following link: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2023/404.html. The subject of the dispute was a tenancy held by both parties jointly, which has been transferred to the respondent solely by the UK court order. The appellant is an Iranian national, while respondent is a Ukrainian, both holding British citizenship. The core issue of the appeal before the High Court of Justice became the validity of their marriage ceremony that had took place back in 1997 at the Iranian Embassy in Kyiv. The High Court of Justice appointed a single joint expert to provide a range of the answers regarding applicable Ukrainian law to determine the legal effect of the ceremony in 1997 and whether such act led to the existence of the marriage between parties or not. His Honour Mr Justice Mostyn considered the case with the utmost attentiveness to details and relied on all aspects of the applicable UK laws regarding the formation and annulment of marriages. Significantly, the High Court of Justice chose to apply Ukrainian family legislation while addressing the issues of the marriage ceremony performed by the parties in Kyiv in the nineties. Mr Justice Mostyn specifically noted “the admirably clear evidence of the SJE” and that “In contrast to other cases where the expert evidence is ambiguous, in this case it could not be clearer”. The High Court of Justice while deciding the appeal made a conclusion that “it is clear that under its proper law the 1997 marriage in the Iranian embassy in Kyiv is invalid ab initio, and incapable of being later ratified. When choosing between the alternative of a void and voidable marriage the closest English law concept to the Ukrainian legal treatment of this ceremony is a void marriage.” Following that His Honour Mr Justice Mostyn dismissed the appeal of the applicant on the following footing: i) that the 1997 ceremony was analogous to a domestic non-qualifying ceremony generating no right to the grant of a nullity order; ii) the parties are thus not to be treated as spouses for the purposes of Paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to the Family Law Act 1996; and iii)   the power to transfer the tenancy was validly exercised by the Recorder. In fact, the SJE mentioned in the judgement is Aminat Suleymanova, Managing Partner at AGA Partners, internationally recognized expert in Ukrainian family law. She relied on her more than twenty-year experience and unique expertise in dealing with the international matters to deliver an exquisite, specific, concise, and clear report while addressing numerous questions of the High Court. This case shows the importance of the consideration of the case from all possible aspects and confirms the importance of the expert’s role in the proceedings, including the ones abroad. Author: Oleksandr Gubin, counsel, attorney-at-law at AGA Partners.

AGA Partners successfully represented a Ukrainian trading company in maritime London-based arbitral proceedings over a claim for damages against the Owners. 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. 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’s buyer of the Cargo to reject it and terminate the relevant contract for sale. The Owners’ lien caused damages to the Client for a large sum. The Client referred the matter to a London-based maritime arbitration. The crux of the dispute related to the legality of the Owners’ 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 – 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. 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. After careful consideration of the case, the tribunal satisfied the Client’s claim finding that Sulina anchorage was not a usual waiting place for Ukrainian ports of Danube and the Owners’ detention claim with the lien were both unlawful. The Tribunal satisfied the Client’s claim for damages so suffered as a result of the unlawful actions of the Owners. The AGA Partners’ team was represented by partners Ivan Kasynyuk and Iryna Moroz, as well as senior associate Yurii Bedenko.