In June 2024, a Ukrainian court recognised and granted leave for the enforcement of an arbitral award in favour of a French international trading company. The arbitration arose from the Ukrainian seller’s failure to supply the goods under the contract.   

During the recognition proceedings, the respondent attempted to resist enforcement by raising several objections, including:   

• the absence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties;  

• improper notification of the arbitration proceedings; and  

• the alleged non-existence of the award creditor due to corporate restructuring.  

The Ukrainian court dismissed all objections, finding that the award fully met the formal and substantive requirements of the 1958 New York Convention. The court also confirmed that enforcement would not contradict Ukraine’s public policy.   

This decision reaffirms the pro-enforcement and arbitration-friendly stance of Ukrainian courts. 

The matter was handled by Partners Iryna Moroz, Ivan Kasynyuk and Counsel Pavlo Lebediev. 

According to the results of the annual study “Market Leaders. Rating of Law Firms — 2025” conducted by Yuridichna Gazeta, AGA Partners received the status of “Leader in Practice” in eight key areas: 

• Agribusiness / Land Law 

• Family Law 

• War Damage Practice 

• Maritime Law 

• International Arbitration / International Litigation 

• International Trade 

• Private clients 

• Sports law 

Special mention was made of the personal contribution of managing partner Aminat Suleymanova, who was included in the top 20 most effective female partners of law firms in Ukraine.  

The ranking is based on three components: the quality of cases and projects, recommendations from colleagues, and international recognition. This allows for an objective assessment of law firms' positions in the market. 

For us, this recognition is an indicator of our systematic work, which is confirmed every day by both the results we deliver to our clients and our professional reputation. 

AGA Partners’ team provided comprehensive legal support to a Ukrainian company in implementing a contractual mechanism for trading agricultural machinery, fertilisers and fuel with farmers. The proposed solution involved the use of crop receipts as a tool to secure the fulfilment of farmers' obligations. 

As part of the project, AGA Partners also provided detailed advice on the legal regime for the circulation of crop receipts in Ukraine, including risk analysis, opportunities for protecting the rights of the creditor, and practical aspects of working with this instrument. 

Counsel Pavlo Lebediev and associate Viktor Pasichnyk worked on the project. 

AGA Partners is pleased to announce a successful outcome in a case before the Commercial Court of Sumy Region, where we represented the Swiss branch of a major Chinese agribusiness corporation. The case was part of broader proceedings to recognise and enforce a London-seated arbitration award in Ukraine against a Ukrainian debtor reported in our previous publications.

In a strategic attempt to evade enforcement of an arbitral award, the Debtor filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the underlying sales contract that served as the basis for the arbitration. The Debtor primarily argued that the parties never exchanged the original version of the contract.

AGA Partners challenged the jurisdiction of the commercial court, arguing that the arbitration agreement had been duly confirmed by both Ukrainian courts and the arbitral tribunal, and the contract itself had been repeatedly acknowledged as valid.

The court rejected the Debtor’s claims as unfounded, citing several key points: (1) the issue of the contract’s validity had already been addressed during the arbitration; (2) the contract contained a valid arbitration clause mandating resolution of disputes (including the ones on validity of the contract) only through arbitration; and (3) the presumption of the arbitration agreement’s validity had not been rebutted.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the case without consideration, reaffirming the binding nature of the arbitration clause between the parties.

The case was handled by Partner Iryna Moroz, Senior Associate Dmytro Izotov, and Associate Maksym Fesenko.

The case involved a $9 million corn shipment under the CIF contract, under which the Client acted as the Seller.

All goods were delivered on time and with full documentation. Yet the Buyer delayed payment for the cargo - first citing “banking issues”, then blaming a default by their sub-buyers. Under the contract terms and applicable INCASSO payment terms, our Client was legally entitled not to discharge the cargo without payment, however, he was unable to redirect the goods to another buyer (after sending this one to the default) due to the Buyer’s bank holding the irrevocable original documents.

During this time, the Buyer was declared in default, only to later attempt to “cure” it with further promices which turned out to be baseless. The situation spiraled as our Client had to navigate mounting losses, broken promises, shifting excuses, and simultaneous pressure from the vessel Owner threatening to withdraw the ship.

After failed promises and last-minute manoeuvres, the Buyer finally settled the payment for the goods. The Client then gave green light for discharge, however, the vessel had lost its berthing turn, triggering another month of delay. And yet, after accepting the goods, the Buyer refused to pay a single dollar in demurrage.

The arbitration that followed was no less dramatic. The Buyer launched a full obstruction campaign: challenging the arbitrator’s impartiality, disputing jurisdiction, and filing a mirror-image counterclaim clearly designed to stall proceedings.

Represented by Ivan Kasynyuk, Dariia Zyma, and Viktor Romaniv, the AGA Partners team systematically dismantled every claim, rebutted all procedural challenges, and won a full award of over $700,000 in favor of our Client.

AGA Partners successfully represented the Client – the largest Chinese state corporation specialising in the production of a wide range of construction materials in a case regarding the recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award International Chamber of Commerce ICC issued in Hong Kong.

This case is particularly significant for several reasons, namely: (1) an arbitration award was recognised and permitted for enforcement despite ongoing liquidation procedures against the debtor bank, and (2) the amounts awarded by the arbitration decision exceed 100,000,000.00 euros.

Therefore, the Court's decision sets an important precedent for future cases related to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in Ukraine in the context of bank liquidation proceedings. The AGA Partners team was represented by partner Iryna Moroz, senior associate Dariia Zyma, associate Maksym Fesenko, and associate Tetiana Osypenko.

AGA Partners is pleased to announce a successful outcome in a case before the Commercial Court of Sumy Region, where we represented the Swiss branch of a major Chinese agribusiness corporation. The case was part of broader proceedings to recognize and enforce a London-seated arbitration award in Ukraine against a Ukrainian debtor previously reported here.

As part of the enforcement process, the debtor's bank accounts were lawfully seized by a private enforcement officer. However, a third party filed a claim against both the private enforcement officer and the debtor, seeking to lift the seizure and recover funds it had allegedly transferred by mistake.

Our Client joined the case as an interested party, emphasizing the risk that the claim was a coordinated attempt to shield the debtor’s assets and circumvent the enforcement of the arbitration award.

The Court partially satisfied the claim, finding that the disputed funds had been transferred to the debtor without a legal basis - but crucially, this did not invalidate the enforcement measures already in place. The Court further held that the third party’s rights could still be protected through separate legal remedies, and the claimant did not hold priority over other creditors.

As a result, the seizure remained intact, and our Client’s right to enforcement was preserved.

The case was handled by Partner Iryna Moroz, Senior Associate Dmytro Izotov, and Associate Maksym Fesenko.

AGA Partners successfully represented a Swiss trading company in an arbitration arising from the contract for 6,200 tonnes of Ukrainian corn. Following a partial payment of USD 450,000.00, the sellers declared the client in default and unlawfully retained an advance payment in the sum of USD 161,766.00, alleging demurrage, legal costs, and other damages. 

The client challenged the sellers’ retention of funds in the arbitration proceedings under GAFTA Arbitration Rules No. 125. The tribunal found the sellers’ retention of funds partially unjustified and the sellers’ damages claims inflated. Ultimately, the tribunal ordered the sellers to return withheld funds to the client immediately and awarded interest at 5.5% per annum until the date of payment. 

The AGA Partners team included partner Ivan Kasyniuk, counsel Pavlo Lebediev and associate Tetiana Osypenko.  

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.