Thank you. Brilliant. I am an Australian solicitor. I will connect on linkedIn.

This is the best legal lecture I have ever heard, delivered in the best shirt ever to appear on a lawyer on screen. Somebody option this guy if they ever make a sequel to The Firm

Clear talk, but two comments. First while evasion was defined in one way, Lord Sumption (as Denning did) also defined it another way that 'fraud unravels all'. Evasion is unjustified if anything more than unravelling fraud as there is no equivalent for natural persons. I cannot pierce my neighbour's veil in the event no other remedy is available to me. Second, I disagree with the conclusion that Salomon may be found to yield when Lord Sumption expressly held the previous cases are properly analysed as having not yielded to Salomon. Prest strengthens Salomon by confirming a company can hold property on trust, just like in the Court of Appeal in Chandler v Cape that a parent company can be liable in tort for the actions of its subsidiary. The confusion in the cases is a direct result of a false partnership analogy, one of many false partnership analogies that still trouble corporate law today. The company is real and too often is this misapplied. ClientEarth v Shell and Tozzi Srl are two recent examples where it was mistaken.

A very good and concise summary of sanctions! Thank you

Fantastic

Interesting case. Thanks for the briefing

the facts of unicredit v glencore might be incorrect. The buyback contract was from Hin Leong to Glencore not the other way round.

Can you do this with a foreign (Spanish) Bank?

Would you deem an order to the police where executors have withheld documents from us and the police have investigated the wider matter.

Many thanks for the swift update.❤

A fascinating presentation by each of the speakers. Thanks for sharing.

Great

Nice seminar

Very good, well presented!

Thank you for sharing this seminar ❤

Thank you a very clear and detailed explanation of this application. These 10 mins of distilled info saved my precious revision time.

good job. many thanks for sharing this seminar.

I am of the opinion for the amendment of a companies act to allow recovery for reflective loss. This can be done by trying to explore the law of delict for the claiming of damages .We can get in touch and have a further discussion on it especially on proving wrongfulness (legal duty) element

*Promosm* ❤️

Fantastic

Interesting case....

Is there any difference between substantial compliance and strict compliance? In practice, is doctrine of strict compliance slightly obsoleted? Thanks.

A good update on the risk and hazard of Li-Ion batteries generally and with EVs in particular. A good update on the facts that the fires will occur and they cannot be extinguished on any ship (Felicity Ace (billion dollar loss) is appropriately mentioned). So… You are all well aware and informed. As are the EV, research, fire and marine industries. From your presentatión it is clear that a strong case can be made that any ship knowingly carrying Li-ion EVs can be deemed to have been unseaworthy and that due diligence has not been shown. Then why are Li-ion EVs still carried on PCCs and RoRos and why do you not advocate now that they should not be carried?

If you're doing a technical talk on EVs it destroys your credibility when you don't even know the difference between kW and kWh. I was also disappointed at the suggestion that features such as summon (Tesla on the driveway moving itself) has any relationship to cars moving themselves when on fire. Summon capable cars will only do so when commanded to do so by the key holder! They have parking brakes like any car, the risk is with that failing and allowing the vehicle to move just as it would with any vehicle that is on fire.

Succinct. Strict to the point

☝️Reach out to the name shown on my channel on Ig for assistance to get back your disabled, locked, suspended banned or hacked account,his ☝️👍

"A beneficiary who is aware of fraud but is not responsible for it is entitled to be paid" - M Bridge, Int Sale of Goods 4th ed OUP para 6.89. So, it would seem a seller/beneficiary can obtain payment even if they had "no honest belief in the demand" because they may not have been privy to the fraud and may be a victim.

Very interesting and useful

Would be helpful if you added chapters in the webinar.

Is a vessel unseaworthy when shipowners employ a crew with knowledge that the crew is incompetent, particularly if that crew was the navigating officer responsible for a defective passage plan in an accident that occurred on another vessel?

Excellent

The whole world is corrupt including parliament, judges and the 3 to 1%... There's tax dodgers EVERYWHERE. The judge who has millions of pounds worth of assets offshore freezes the assets of a defendant who's trying to feed his or hers family. I'm personally aware (not naming names) of an MP front Bencher who enjoys Singapore and has assets worth millions that were bought there from money that should have been declared & taxed before leaving the country... The UK effectively lost £18.6m in taxes. If he's doing it then they all are. Lets go after the smaller criminal instead lol... What a joke.

much appreciated!

Great presentation, thank you! Re the point as to whether the sale of the vessel by the admiralty court leads to a loss of jurisdiction for claims accruing against the bareboat charterer in rem: I would have thought that if the sale terminates the charter, then because the foundation of in rem jurisdiction is the res, and as the in rem action is viewed as a procedural technique to compel the in personam defendant to appear, if the bareboat charterer no longer has a ‘res’ because of the sale, those with claims against them can no longer bring an in rem claim against the proceeds. Any thoughts? Thanks again.

A case analysis can't be better !

good work on freezing injunction....... Emily ...keep it up

Boss - "Aaron, do research on force majeure." So...here I am.

Bring back Quadcast!

Goodness! I learnt SO MUCH in this video! Already clearing my schedule to binge watch your videos! Thanks for discussing these tricky topics with lucid clarity

Nice presentation.

I agree with both the QC. The law is there to protect the people, but somehow the corporate entities are being protected over the average Joe. However love all the arguments made and have learned alot. Thank you 😊

Paul is right; In Marex, the only basis for the rule against reflective loss is Foss v. Harbottle. Every other policy concern is not separate from the "proper plaintiff" rationale. Everything, including double recovery, can eventually be tied back to Foss v. Harbottle.

This new practice direction should have been notified to all practitioners months ago. It will affect cost budgets already approved by the court. There ought to be a transitionary where the new PD51AC applies from after CCMC's listed 6 April 2021 onwards. Also it will affect the collection and understanding of data under PD51U which will take time to incorporate into new procedures.

Thanks for this - very helpful.

These quadcasts are fantastic to listen to in the evening! Its evident all four of you are superbly intelligent yet somehow, also appear to be friendly and approachable! I'm strongly considering applying for mini pupillage if this is the type of work environment one can expect. Great job all of you!

How have I only stumbled across this now!? This looks like great fun!

Very informative. Sir Nigel was great.

Chris, thank you. Quite an interesting judgment and of course has serious consequences in general contract law. Also, more crucially for S&P disputes especially in cases where the vessel's have been overstated by Owners. Especially, when the 5% or 0.5knots allowance is applied as a standard practice.

Well said

Hmm...it does seem unfair that the company could be held liable for being unaware of the true source of the idea.