AGA Partners successfully represented the interests of its client — a major Australian agribusiness company — in two parallel proceedings for the recognition and enforcement in Ukraine of arbitral awards rendered in London. The cases were considered by the Kyiv Court of Appeal. 

Following the granting of enforcement by the Ukrainian court, the parties reached a settlement on terms favorable to the client. 

The legal team included Partner Iryna Moroz, Senior Associate Yurii Bedenko, and Associate Viktor Pasichnyk. 

AGA Partners successfully represented a leading Serbian commodities trader, Vimeksim, in an appeal arbitration in London against the buyer, an English trading company.

The dispute arose from the Ukrainian corn sale contract on CIF Libya terms. Despite the Client having duly performed all contractual obligations, the buyer failed to confirm the vessel nomination and provide documentary instructions. Since the buyer ignored the Client’s demands to provide the documentary instructions urgently, the Client declared the buyer in default after the shipment period expired and resold the goods to mitigate damages.

The first-tier arbitral tribunal admitted the Client’s position in full, awarding the Client more than USD 200,000 in default damages plus compound interest and arbitration costs. The buyers, however, commenced appeal proceedings to delay the enforcement and commenced a liquidation of their company.

Despite a 9-month delay caused by the buyers’ conduct, AGA Partners managed to close the appeal proceedings based on the non-payment of the additional security for arbitration costs by the buyers. Now, after more than 2 years of arbitration, the Client finally has an enforceable award and will pursue the recovery of the awarded sum.

The team working on the case included the partner Ivan Kasynyuk, senior associate Dariia Zyma and associate Viktor Pasichnyk.

On 4 March 2025, AGA Partners, together with the UBA Committees on Alternative Dispute Resolution and Agrarian Law, organised a practical webinar “New Rules for Compensation of Damages in Commodities Arbitrations”. 

The event was moderated by Iryna Moroz, Partner at AGA Partners and Deputy Chairman of the UBA Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution. The participants discussed high-profile cases that have influenced the approaches to determining damages in international trade. 

Pavlo Lebedev, Counsel at AGA Partners and Deputy Chairman of the UBA Committee on Agrarian Law, spoke about the change in the approach of the English courts to determining the date of default under sale contracts on the example of Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest. 

Viktor Pasichnyk, Associate at AGA Partners and member of the UBA Agricultural Law Committee, shared his analysis of the fundamental English precedent Bunge v Nidera and explained how arbitrators in commodity arbitrations apply the new approach to determining the date of default. 

Vasyl Radetskyi, Associate at AGA Partners, spoke about the recent English court decision in Sharp Corp Ltd v Viterra, explaining how it will affect the calculation of damages under CIF-based contracts. 

In conclusion, AGA Partners' lawyers provided practical recommendations to traders and lawyers in the agricultural sector on the minimisation of risks during the execution of the soft commodities sale contracts. 

AGA Partners are glad to share that we successfully represented our Client, a Swiss branch of a major Chinese agriculture corporation, in the Ukrainian Supreme Court, which rendered a precedent decision in case No. 824/268/21, confirming the legality of the enforcement procedure challenged by the opposing party.

Case Overview

This case forms part of the ongoing proceedings concerning the recognition and enforcement of the arbitration award in Ukraine. The dispute arose from the enforcement of an arbitral award issued by a London-based tribunal. After obtaining recognition and permission for enforcement, our Client initiated enforcement actions in early 2023. The Debtor, however, challenged the process, claiming that its registered location in an area of military operations precluded enforcement and alleging procedural violations by the private enforcement officer.

Our legal team established that the debtor re-registered its location only after enforcement had commenced and this occurred in the areas of possible military (combat) operations, which indicates that the complaint in this part is groundless. We further demonstrated that all procedural requirements were fully met, and the Debtor’s objections lacked legal merit.

Court Rulings and Legal Significance

Both the Kyiv Appeal Court and the Supreme Court rejected the debtor’s claims and confirmed the legality of the enforcement proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that:

· The enforcement process complies with Ukrainian law.

· The change of the Debtor's place of registration took place after the enforcement proceedings were initiated and was not due to the fact that the re-registration was carried out in the area of active military (combat) operations.

· The private enforcement officer acted lawfully.

This decision affirms the binding nature of enforcement actions and strengthens Ukraine’s position as a jurisdiction that upholds the rule of law and respects international arbitration awards.

Partner Iryna Moroz, senior associate Dmytro Izotov, and associate Maksym Fesenko represented the AGA Partners team in this case.

AGA Partners has successfully arrested a vessel berthed in the port of Chornomorsk, Ukraine, securing a significant claim on behalf of our client for damages caused by contamination of a cargo of ammonium sulphate.

The client chartered the vessel for a voyage from Huanghua, China, to Chornomorsk, Ukraine. 12,500 metric tons of granular ammonium sulphate had been loaded onto the vessel in Huanghua, with a Bill of Lading issued. At loading, the cargo was confirmed to be in sound condition.

The situation took a turn when the vessel’s master issued a Sea Protest, noting severe weather conditions after passing the Maldives. During an emergency stop in Tripoli, Lebanon, a surveyor identified wet damage to the cargo, indicating that a full inspection upon unloading was necessary to determine the extent of the damage.

The vessel subsequently made a stop in Istanbul to complete all the necessary repairs.

Ultimately upon arrival at the discharge port of Chornomorsk, it was discovered that the cargo was severely damaged. Furthermore, the vessel’s technical issues caused significant delays in the discharge process, resulting in additional losses for the consignee.

Faced with these circumstances, the consignee initiated legal proceedings against the owners and sought the vessel’s arrest to secure their claim.

The Ukrainian court, after reviewing the arrest application prepared by AGA Partners, granted the order for the vessel’s arrest.

This legal action provided the client with substantial leverage in negotiations, culminating in a settlement agreement where the owners agreed to pay USD 375,000 to the Client in full settlement of all claims.

The AGA Partners’ team was represented by partner Ivan Kasyniuk, counsel Pavlo Lebediev and associate Tetiana Osypenko.

The dispute arose out of the two CIF contracts under which our Client had to ship the corn for a total value of more than USD 3,000,000.00.

While the goods were delivered and discharged to the Buyers without issue, a dispute over demurrage costs soon emerged. Despite initially acknowledging the demurrage sums incurred, the Buyers ultimately began avoiding the payment for demurrage, leaving the Clients with no choice but to initiate arbitration proceedings.

The case involved unique complexities, as the Buyers’ parent company had served as a Guarantor under both contracts. However, the Guarantor—registered in Egypt—contested jurisdiction before the Tribunal, arguing that merely being mentioned in the contracts did not bind them to the arbitration clause, especially since the contracts were not signed by the Guarantor.

Drawing on English case law and a thorough examination of the factual circumstances, the AGA Partners team successfully demonstrated that the guarantor shared the same commitments as the Buyers in terms of their liability under the contracts. The Arbitrator upheld this position, affirming the Guarantor’s liability alongside the Buyers.

As a result, AGA Partners secured an arbitral award against both companies, ensuring the Clients’ rights were fully protected and enabling the successful enforcement of the award.

The AGA Partners’ team was represented by partner Ivan Kasynyuk together with the senior associate Yurii Bedenko and associate Maksym Fesenko.

What happened? 

Episode 1: No Signs of Trouble 

Ukrainian fleet owner time-chartered a tanker ship (“Vessel”) to import diesel fuel from the EU to Ukraine. In March 2024, an affiliated company of this fleet owner (“Charterers) procured the diesel fuel in Greece and voyage-chartered the Vessel to deliver the fuel to Ismail, Ukraine.  

By the end of March 2024, the fuel was loaded in Greece, and the shipping documents confirming its good quality were tendered to the Charterers. The Charterers were holders of the “to order” bill of lading, which provided that the cargo had been loaded in “apparent good condition” and contained the “clean on board” inscription. The title and risk to the cargo passed on to the Charterers.  

Importantly, the head owners of the Vessel represented the time charterers that she was seaworthy and cargoworthy. The Vessel’s voyage to Greece and, later, from Greece to Ukraine was her first after she was tendered to the time charterers.  

Episode 2: Water Instead of Fuel 

In April 2024, the Vessel arrived at the discharge port. The discharge commenced via the cargo manifold (main pump). However, it was stopped soon since instead of the diesel fuel, an emulsion containing a significant amount of water was pumped out from the Vessel. The string buyer’s surveyors submitted letters of protest regarding this.  

At the same time, the head owners of the Vessel precluded surveyors of the Charterers and the string buyer from inspecting the quality of the goods, while the vessel’s master, subordinated to the head owners, refused to pass on to surveyors the samples of the cargo taken at the loading port and tore the receipt of acceptance of the said samples. 

The samples at the discharge port were eventually taken, and it turned out that the fuel contained more than 27% of water, as well as 6.5% of admixtures, including salt. Surveyours suggested that the cargo manifold was damaged, causing the contamination of the fuel during the discharge.  

Considering this, the discharge port fuel terminal prohibited the discharge through the cargo manifold, and the discharge continued through the cargo stripping lines. Due to the low output of the stripping lines, the discharge was significantly delayed and lasted for almost a month. 

At the same time, surveyors inspected the Vessel, but her master and crew hindered the inspection by precluding them from accessing the pump room and prohibiting the photo- and video fixation of the inspection. Despite this, the survey revealed multiple violations of the head owners, namely, the presence of water in the cargo discharge pipelines, dirty water in several cargo tanks, lack of the manifold’s tightness and unfilled log book. Accordingly, the Vessel was apparently not cargoworthy.  

Episode 3: Damages and Legal Action 

Due to the contamination of the cargo, a part of it was spoiled completely, resulting in significant losses for the Charterers. Additionally, the Charterers incurred costs for utilisation of the spoiled fuel, the demurrage of the tank cars onto which the fuel should have been loaded and faced a claim from the string buyer. The total amount of damages was estimated by the Charterers at around USD 2.6 million. 

The Charterers commenced the vessel arrest proceedings in Ukraine, arguing that the head owners, the carriage contract with whom was evidenced by the master’s stamp on the bill of lading, breached their duty to tender the cargoworthy vessel and maintain her cargoworthiness. 

Particularly, the vessel was not suitable to carry and discharge the cargo of fuel due to (1) technical problems with the cargo manifold and the discharge pipelines, and (2) uncooperative conduct of the master and crew, who concealed the problems and obstructed inspections. 

What was the outcome of the dispute? 

The court arrested the Vessel without requesting the Charterers to pay the deposit, securing the possible head owners’ losses.  

Facing a risk of the prolonged idling of the vessel under arrest, the head owners, who previously disregarded the Charterers’ demands for compensation of damages, entered into negotiations with them. Negotiations resulted in a settlement on terms favourable for the Charterers, and the vessel was released. 

Key takeaways 

This case highlights the following essential lessons for the shipping industry: 

1. Bill of Lading is Enough to Claim Damages From the Head Owner. Bills of lading are considered to be the proper evidence of contractual relations between the charterer and the head owner when there is an intermediate (disponent) owner. They allow the charterer to sue the head owners directly in cargo contamination cases. 

1. Vessel Arrest is the Charterer’s Trump Card. Shipowners often bear losses disproportionate to the value of charterers’ claims and usually try to negotiate a settlement when facing vessel arrest. 

1. Arrest Without a Deposit is Possible. Although courts usually demand a deposit from charterers as a counter-security, in a case when the charterers’ claims look well-grounded, the court may not demand payment of the deposit. 

Stay tuned for more valuable insights from our recent shipping practice! 

Prepared by Yurii Bedenko, senior associate, and Viktor Pasichnyk, associate.

AGA Partners is pleased to announce a successful settlement in London arbitration where we represented a leading Ukrainian agricultural holding in their dispute against a prominent Chinese corporation.

The case revolved around a sale contract governed by English law for the supply of 1,500 MT of Ukrainian Crude Rapeseed Oil. The contract stipulated CIF delivery terms with a shipment period between 15 October and 15 November 2023. Challenges arose due to port congestion in Ukraine, prompting our client to request an extension of the shipment period to 25 November 2023. The buyers’ representative agreed to the extension and confirmed shipment in WhatsApp.

Despite this agreement, the buyers reneged on their commitment nearly a month after confirming shipment, citing alleged late delivery. Their abrupt rejection of the goods coincided with a significant market downturn and caused substantial losses to our client as the vessel neared China.

As a result, the client instructed our team to initiate London arbitration. A robust claim led the buyers to recognise their obligations and reach an amicable settlement. Consequently, our client achieved full compensation for the damages incurred, demonstrating the effectiveness of tailored and timely legal solutions.

Credits to the partners Ivan Kasynyuk and Iryna Moroz, together with the counsel Pavlo Lebediev and associate Anastasiia Shevchuk for handling this arbitration.

The Four-Month Detention Saga 

Episode 1: Exclusion from the JCC list 

In October 2022, a Polish company chartered a bulk carrier with a deadweight of ~7,000 mt to transport Ukrainian grain from Chornomorsk, Ukraine, to Marmara, Turkey. The voyage was to be performed under the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which required the inspection of vessels by the Joint Coordination Centre (“JCC”). 

To comply with the unique requirements of the Grain Initiative, the parties made specific adjustments to the charter party. 

1. The shipowner had to tender the notice of arrival (“NOA”) at the Istanbul JCC inspection area between 8 and 12 October 2022. 

1. The vessel had to satisfy the requirements of the loading port. 

1. The charterer was to appoint a loading port agent. 

1. Detention at the Istanbul JCC inspection area was to be paid with the freight. 

The vessel arrived at the Istanbul JCC inspection area within the lay days in October 2022.  

However, the inspection, initially expected to proceed promptly, faced repeated postponements, eventually stretching into late November 2022. In December 2022, the situation escalated when the vessel was unexpectedly removed from the JCC inspection list.  

Although it was later reinstated to the waiting list, this did not last long. The vessel was repeatedly removed again without any explanation, further aggravating the delays and uncertainty.  

Episode 2: The Termination of the Charter Party 

In mid-January 2023, following the vessel's third exclusion from the JCC inspection list, the shipowner sought explanations for the repeated removals and demanded compensation for four months of detention. The charterer, however, rejected this claim, maintaining that any detention could be paid only after the shipowner earned the freight. 

The charterer then shifted the blame onto the shipowner, alleging that the vessel's exclusion resulted from its failure to meet the loading port's requirements. The charterer demanded compensation for the prolonged storage of the goods and losses incurred under their sale contract. 

When the shipowner rejected these claims, the charterer terminated the charter party because of "non-delivery of the vessel for loading". Left with no alternative, the shipowner initiated LMAA arbitration, seeking to recover $1 million in detention costs. 

Episode 3: The Vessel Arrest 

In July 2023, the charterer escalated the dispute by arresting the vessel at the Ukrainian port of Izmail. The arrest rendered the vessel unable to perform its intended voyage, prompting the shipowner to seek its immediate release.  

Acting on behalf of the shipowner, our team secured the vessel’s release by depositing the claimed amount into the court’s account. This solution provided us with the necessary time to challenge the validity of the arrest and return the shipowner’s deposit. 

What was the outcome of the dispute? 

The LMAA arbitration resulted in a victory for the Turkish shipowner. The tribunal awarded $1 million in demurrage and issued several key rulings for shipping practice. 

• The shipowner’s obligation was limited to delivering the vessel to the Istanbul JCC inspection area. Responsibility for arranging the JCC inspection and the vessel’s passage to Ukrainian ports rested with the agent appointed by the charterer. 

• The tribunal held that the charterer bore the risk of the vessel’s exclusion, as it had appointed the loading port agent. The charter party terms overrode typical shipping practices, where agents nominated by the charterer are still subordinate to the shipowner. 

• The termination of the charter party was wrongful, as the agent, acting on the charterer’s behalf, failed to arrange the vessel’s passage to the Chornomorsk port. 

• Although detention was to be settled together with freight under the charter party, this did not make detention conditional on the performance of the voyage. The shipowner retained the right to claim detention, even without earning the freight. 

Key takeaways! 

This case highlights several critical lessons for shipping practice.

• Entitlement to Detention vs. Timing of Payment. Distinguish between the accrual of detention and its payment. The timing of payment does not change the shipowner’s right to claim compensation for detention. 
• The Charter Party is the King! The charter party's wording is crucial. It can override both applicable law and established shipping practices, as demonstrated in this case, where the charter party terms determined the agent’s principal.  
• Lifting Vessel Arrest Through Court Deposits. In urgent situations, vessel arrest can be lifted by depositing the claimed amount into the court’s account. Once released, the validity of the arrest can be contested, and the deposit can be returned to the shipowner.

Stay tuned for our next publications, where we’ll explore more pivotal maritime disputes and their implications! 

AGA Partners successfully represented a leading Swiss trading company (seller) in London arbitration against a Romanian agricultural commodities supplier (buyer). 

This dispute arose out of a supply contract of Ukrainian corn on a FOB delivery basis. Upon the seller's shipment of the first parcel of the goods followed by service of all shipping documents, the buyer failed to pay the full price therefor. Moreover, the buyer failed to take delivery of the balance quantity of the goods. 

The Tribunal upheld the seller's position and obliged the buyer to pay the balance price of the delivered goods as well as damages for the buyer’s refusal to take the remainder of the goods. The awarded amount exceeded USD 450,000.00. 

The AGA Partners’ team was represented by partner Iryna Moroz, as well as a senior associate, Ievgen Boiarskyi, and an associate, Andrii Tantsiura. 

AGA Partners successfully represented a Ukrainian state-owned agricultural company in three London appeal arbitration proceedings against a Swiss-based buyer under three sale contracts with a total value of more than USD 46 mln. 

All three cases primarily concerned the buyer’s failure to pay the price of duly supplied goods of contractual quality and quantity. In addition, the seller claimed damages for the buyer’s failure to take balance quantity of the goods as well as dispatch costs for conducting prompt loading operations. 

In its defence, the buyer claimed frustration of all three contracts. In other words, the buyer claimed that it was entitled to take delivery of the goods and to refrain from paying therefor due to an alleged frustration. 

Both in the first tier and in the appeal proceedings, arbitrators ruled in favour of AGA Partners’ client by satisfying its claim in full. The total amount of the awarded sums under three arbitration awards is more than USD 24 mln. 

The successful outcome was achieved as a result of a the professionally coordinated performance of a partner Iryna Moroz, a senior associate Ievgen Boiarskyi and an associate Vasyl Radetskyi.  

AGA Partners successfully represented a major Ukrainian state-owned agricultural company in a dispute against its financial advisor. The dispute arose out of a financial services agreement with regard to the restructuring of debt under a loan agreement with an international bank.  

The client claimed that the counterparty committed fraudulent misrepresentation and unjustly enriched itself. In the course of SCC arbitration, AGA Partners argued for the return of the USD 1.5 million advance payment and reimbursement of legal and arbitration costs and fees.  

In written submissions, the claimant presented clear evidence and indisputable arguments confirming the financial advisor’s fraudulent misrepresentation committed with regard to the financial services agreement and opposed the multimillion counterclaim. Besides, AGA Partners participated in the oral hearings examining financial advisor’s witnesses. 

The arbitration resulted in full satisfaction of the client’s claims. The financial advisor was ordered to return the advance payment to the strategic Ukrainian state-owned company and cover arbitration costs, legal fees and interest thereon. 

The success was achieved through the professional coordination of AGA partner Iryna Moroz, counsel Pavlo Lebediev, and associates Anastasia Shevchuk and Vasyl Radetskyi. 

AGA Partners successfully represented a UAE-based trading company (Sellers) in London arbitration against an Egyptian company specializing in the distribution of agricultural commodities (Buyers) related to a claim for recovery of debt in the sum of USD 600,000.00.

The dispute arose from a contract for the delivery of 6,000 MT of Ukrainian corn under CIFFO terms to Egypt. Due to the Buyers' inability to make timely payment, the contract quantity of the goods was reduced to 3,000 MT, and partial payment was made. Despite repeated acknowledgments of the outstanding debt, the Buyers failed to settle the remaining balance, leading the Sellers to initiate arbitration proceedings.

In response to the Sellers’ claim, the Buyers submitted the documents indicating the full prepayment for the goods. The Sellers responded that the invoices did not reflect any actual prepayment. To strengthen their position, the Sellers submitted a disclosure request, seeking evidence of the alleged payment from the Buyers. However, the Buyers failed to produce any relevant documents.

As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the Buyers had failed to prove any prepayment for the goods and sided with the Sellers, fully upholding their claim. The Tribunal ordered the Buyers to pay the outstanding balance for the delivered goods, affirming the Sellers’ right to recover the full amount sought in the arbitration.

The AGA Partners’ team was represented by partner Ivan Kasynyuk, counsel Pavlo Lebediev, and associate Andrii Tantsiura.

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.