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. 

The seminar brought together participants from various sectors — business, media, state, and NGOs — to discuss important issues related to changes in modern understanding families:
The importance of demarcation understanding "family", "family" and "marriage" for legal and social aspects.
Modern challenges and new forms of partnerships that require a review of family policy.
This program is implemented on the initiatives of the Office of the President of Ukraine, the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine, the Coordination Center for the Development of Family Education and supported by the EU and UNICEF in Ukraine.

Advisor Pavlo Lebediev acted as a speaker within the session "Prospects of the exit of Ukrainian flour, croup, pasta and bread products to the markets of the Western Balkans".
Thanks to the organizers of the event "Boroshnomela Union of Ukraine / Millers of Ukraine", Trend & Hedge Club and Agro Marketing Agency.
We continue to work together to strengthen the agro-business of Ukraine!

AGA Partners achieved the release of the Clent’s goods – more than 3,000 mt of barley – from the vessel M/V USKO MFU, which was arrested in the Reni port, Ukraine. The vessel was arrested at the request of the Office of the Prosecutor of Crimea and Sevastopol City due to the alleged voyages to the Russia-annexed Crimea.

The Client – a Greek trading company – was not aware of the possible prior voyages of the affreighted vessel to ports of the annexed Crimea, relying on the shipowners’ representation that there were no grounds for the vessel’s arrest or detention and that their business activities comply with the legislation combating the terrorism financing. 

Therefore, after the vessel was arrested, the Client became a hostage of this situation, risking to incur damages because of the deterioration of the grain in the vessel’s holds. However, thanks to the successful actions of AGA Partners, including applications to the court and law enforcement authorities, as well as negotiations with the sellers of the goods, shipowners, port harbour master, border guard service and other authorities, the goods were transhipped onto another vessel and delivered to the Client’s buyer under the relevant sale contract. Due to that, damages were avoided. 

The AGA Partners’ team was represented by Partner Ivan Kasynyuk, Senior Associate Yurii Bedenko and Associate Viktor Pasichnyk. 

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.

On September 11 and 12 in Bucharest Partners Iryna Moroz and Ivan Kasynyuk together with associate Anastasiia Shevchuk conducted a training course “Commodity Shipping” organized by Gafta: The Grain and Feed Trade Association 

The following topics were discussed:
✔️Sales contract and charter parties
✔️Bills of lading
✔️Time charters
✔️Loading
✔️Demurrage
✔️Lay time

We would like extend our thanks to Jaine Chisholm Caunt OBE, CEO of Gafta: The Grain and Feed Trade Association, for providing us with the opportunity to deliver such an informative and comprehensive course, and to the participants for their active engagement in the discussion.

The dispute arose out of two contracts for the sale of 2,200 metric tons (in total) of sunflower seed oil. While the seller duly delivered the goods, the buyer opted not to pay their full value, arguing the inability to make payments under the contracts due to the alleged banking system issues.  

During the arbitration proceedings, the parties exchanged four rounds of written submissions, during which the buyer attempted to evade liability by all means. In particular, the buyer sought to initiate criminal proceedings against the seller in Spain while simultaneously demanding that the Tribunal recognize the claims as stayed on the same grounds. 

Nevertheless, due to the diligent and coordinated endeavors of AGA Partners, the seller's claims were satisfied, and the Tribunal awarded EUR 2.8 million in favor of the seller, alongside interest at a rate of 5% and legal and arbitration expenses. 

In its award, the Tribunal admitted that buyers bear all risks associated with resolving banking issues and compliance when making payment for the delivered goods.  

And no less importantly, the Tribunal also acknowledged that criminal proceedings, which may be related to the subject matter of the arbitration dispute, cannot serve as grounds for staying the arbitration proceedings, as the latter is confined to determining commercial issues, not criminality. 

The AGA Partners’ team was represented by Partner Iryna Moroz and Associate Oleksandr Zub. 

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. 

AGA Partners was recognized by the national rating Ukrainian Law Firms. A Handbook for Foreign Clients, prepared by PRAVO.UA.

In particular, the company was recognized in 5️⃣ practices:
▫ Agribusiness,
▫ International Trade,
▫ International Arbitration,
▫ Transport: Aviation, Maritime Transport and Shipping,
▫ Family law.

9️⃣ AGA Partners' lawyers were recognized individually:
⭐Managing Partner Aminat Suleymanova - in the category of International Arbitration and Family Law practice;
⭐Partner Iryna Moroz - in the category of Agribusiness, International Arbitration, International Trade, Transport: Aviation, Maritime & Shipping;
⭐Partner Ivan Kasynyuk - in the category of Agribusiness, International Arbitration, International Trade, Transport: Aviation, Maritime & Shipping;
⭐Counsel Pavlo Lebediev - in the category of International Arbitration, International Trade, Transport: Aviation, Maritime & Shipping;
⭐Counsel Elena Sibirtseva - in Family Law practice;
⭐Counsel Oleksandr Gubin - in Family Law practice;
⭐Senior Associate Ievgen Boiarskyi - in the category of International Arbitration and International Trade,
⭐Senior Associate Dmytro Izotov - in the category of International Arbitration and International Trade,
⭐Senior Associate Yurii Bedenko - in the category of International Arbitration and International Trade.

Congratulations to our colleagues on their achievements!

On 25 July 2024, AGA Partners, together with the Ukrainian Bar Association, held an event: “Practical Issues of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments and International Arbitral Awards in Ukraine”.

⚖ Iryna Moroz, Partner at AGA Partners, attorney at law, and Deputy Chairman of the UBA Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution, moderated the event.

⚖ Oleksandr Zub, an Associate at AGA Partners, discussed the peculiarities of recognizing and enforcing arbitral awards with a sanctioned element.

⚖ Maksym Fesenko, an Associate at AGA Partners, spoke on the topic: Invalidation of an arbitration agreement in the recognition and enforcement of an international commercial arbitration award in Ukraine: myth or reality?

Among the invited experts were Olga Kostyshyna, counsel at LCF Law Group, and Iryna Falovska, judge of the Civil Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court.

We are grateful to the hosts and the audience for an interesting interactive.

We are pleased to share a new research “Market Leaders - 2024” by Yurydychna Hazeta, where AGA Partners was recognized among the best law firms in Ukraine in 6 practices:

• Agribusiness/land law;
• International Arbitration/International Litigation;
• International Trade;
• Maritime law;
• Family law;
• Private clients.

Also, traditionally, Aminat Suleimanova, Managing Partner of AGA Partners, entered the TOP-20 effective partner managers.

The dispute arose out of a FOB contract under which the buyer was to tender barges at the Ukrainian port of Reni. In accordance with the terms of the contract, the buyer nominated the barges and provided the necessary information for their acceptance at the port. However, a few days later, the buyer refused to accept the goods and cancelled the nomination of the barges.

Despite the client's repeated requests to withdraw the cancellation of the nomination and proceed with the execution of the contract, the buyer continued to refuse to tender the barges at the port of loading. Due to the complete lack of cooperation, the client was forced to terminate the contract with the buyer and initiated arbitration proceedings against it in London.

The main issue in the arbitration was the date of the buyer's breach of contract, as of which damages had to be calculated. The debate was between two positions: the date of cancellation of the barges' nomination and the end of the delivery period.

After exchanging written explanations, the Tribunal upheld the client's claim and awarded damages in the amount of approximately USD 84,000 with interest on this amount.

In its decision, the Tribunal found that the damages should be calculated based on the market price as of the date when the buyer missed the contractual period for nominating the barges. Accordingly, the client's damages in the form of the difference in the price of the goods should be calculated as of the last possible date when the buyer could have nominated the barges.

AGA Partners' team was represented by partner Ivan Kasynyuk, counsel Pavlo Lebediev and associate Vladyslav Kapustynskyi.