FLP2376 - Certificate in Maritime Disputes and Arbitration - Sample Module 1

Lloyd'sand

CE

Welcome We hope completing

Or if you Tel: +44 (0Email: LM N.B. This discussion

dtheLloyd'screst

ERTIF

Ty

CLega

to the free tria

you enjoy the g the rest of the

have any furth

0)20 7017 5510MAadmin@info

trial is of the mn or end of mod

taretheregistere

FICAT&

ypes of Ap

onstanal Cons

al of Module 1 o

module and fie course you can

h

er questions a

0 orma.com

module contentsule test.

edtrademarksof

TE IN & ARB

M

Marinepproach

A

tina Sasultant

of Certificate in

nd it beneficialn enrol online vi

http://www.lloy

bout the course

s only and you

ftheSocietyincor

MARBITRA

ODULE

e Dispuhes to R

AUTHOR

ampani and Ind

n Maritime Dis

l. Once you haia the website:

ydsmaritimeaca

e or need more

will not receive

rporatedbytheL

RITIMATIO

E 1

utes, ClResolut

R

PhD, Ldepend

putes & Arbitra

ave read throug

ademy.com/md

e information, p

e access to the

loyd'sAct1871b

E DISN

aims aion

LLM, LLdent Tra

ation

gh the contents

da

please do not h

interactive onli

bythenameofLl

SPUT

nd

LB ainer

s, if you are in

hesitate to con

line classroom,

loyd's

TES

terested in

tact us on:

the tutorial

Certificate in Maritime Disputes & Arbitration 2013 / 2014 (FLP2323) 1-1

CONTENTS

Page No.

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.1 Wet Shipping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2. COLLISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.2 The Collision Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.3 Breach of the Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.4 Who Is Liable? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.5 Vicarious Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142.6 Standard of Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162.7 Duty to Assist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.8 Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182.9 Practical Aspects of Dealing with a Collision Incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212.10 Collision Litigation in the Admiralty Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3. GENERAL AVERAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243.2 Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243.3 Who Has the Authority to Order a General Average Act? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253.4 Requirements to Be Entitled to Contribution in General Average . . . . . . . . 253.5 What Constitutes Sacrifice? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263.6 What May Be Included in the Expenditure? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273.7 The Adjustment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283.8 The General Average Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4. SALVAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Contents Module 1

1-2 Certificate in Maritime Disputes & Arbitration 2013 / 2014 (FLP2323)

4.2 The Concept of Salvage Under Maritime Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314.3 Legal Framework of Salvage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314.4 The Salvage Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.4.1 Application of the 1989 Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.5 Salvage under Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364.6 The Essential Elements of Salvage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374.7 Duties of the Salvor and the Salvee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384.8 Who Is Entitled to Claim? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394.9 Calculation of the Salvage Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404.10 Special Compensation p&i Club Clause (scopic) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5. MARINE POLLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.1 The 1992 Civil Liability Convention and 1992 Fund Convention . . . . . . . . . 485.1.1 Types of Vessel Covered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.1.2 Who Is Liable? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

5.1.3 When Liability Arises. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

5.1.4 Exclusion of Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

5.1.5 Time Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

5.1.6 Limitation of Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

5.1.7 When the Shipowner Loses the Right to Limit Liability?. . . . . . . . . . 52

5.1.8 Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

5.1.9 The Role of the 1992 IOPC Fund Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

5.1.10 Time Bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

5.1.11 Jurisdiction for Actions under the IOPC Fund Convention . . . . . . . . 53

5.2 The HNS Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535.2.1 Scope of the Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

5.2.2 Ships Subject to the 1996 HNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545.2.3 Damages Covered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

5.2.4 Who Is Liable? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

5.2.5 Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

5.2.6 Time Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

5.2.7 Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Module 1 Contents


5.2.8 The 1996 HNS Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

5.2.9 Time Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

5.2.10 Jurisdictional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

5.2.11 The 2010 Protocol to the HNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

5.3 The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships . . . 575.4 The International Convention on Civil Liability for

Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595.4.1 Scope of Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

5.4.2 Ships Subject to 2001 BOPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595.4.3 Liability and Who Is Liable? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

5.4.4 Time Bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

5.4.5 Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

5.5 Dry Shipping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605.5.1 The Contract of Affreightment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

5.5.2 Cargoes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

5.5.3 Vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5.5.4 Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5.5.5 Contracts of Affreightment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

6. BILL OF LADING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

6.1 Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656.2 Legal Framework Relating to Bills of Lading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656.3 Functions of the Bill of Lading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 676.4 Types of Bills of Lading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

6.4.1 Liner Bills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

6.4.2 Straight Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

6.4.3 Bearer Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

6.4.4 Order Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

6.4.5 Shipped and Received Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

6.4.6 Switch Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

6.4.7 Charterparty Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

6.4.8 Through Bills of Lading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Contents Module 1


6.4.9 Clean and Claused Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

6.4.10 Freight Forwarders Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

6.4.11 Multimodal Bills of Lading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

6.5 Electronic Bills of Lading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 746.6 Other Documents of Carriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 766.7 Cargo Claims and Bills of Lading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

7. CHARTERPARTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837.2 Types of Charterparties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

7.2.1 Voyage Charterparty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

7.2.2 Time Charterparty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

7.2.3 Demise Charterparty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

7.3 Shipbrokers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877.4 Implied Obligations in a Charterparty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877.5 Obligations of the Shipowner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887.6 Obligations of the Charterer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

7.6.1 Not to Ship Dangerous Goods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

7.7 Common Law Immunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947.8 Legal Highlights on Voyage Charterparties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

7.8.1 Obligation to Provide Cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

7.9 Freight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957.10 Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967.11 Types of Freight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

7.11.1 Freight Payable in Advance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

7.11.2 Lump Sum Freight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

7.11.3 Pro Rata Freight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

7.11.4 Back Freight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

7.11.5 Dead Freight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

7.11.6 Ad Valorem Freight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

7.12 Payment of Freight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Module 1 Contents


7.12.1 Charterparty Freight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

7.12.2 Bill of Lading Freight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

7.12.3 Party to Whom Freight Is Due. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

7.12.4 Place of Payment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

7.12.5 Time of Payment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

7.13 Deductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017.14 Laytime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

7.14.1 The Arrived Ship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

7.14.2 Readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

7.14.3 Notice of Readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

7.15 Demurrage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077.16 Despatch Money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087.17 Legal Highlights on Time Charterparties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087.18 Hire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

7.19 Withdrawal for Non-payment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097.20 Off Hire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107.21 Deductions from Hire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117.22 Period of Hire and Legitimacy of Last Voyage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

8. CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1148.2 The Athens Convention on the Carriage of Passengers and Their Luggage by

Sea, 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1148.2.1 Time Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

8.3 The 2002 Protocol to the Athens Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

9. BUNKER DISPUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1179.2 Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1179.3 Parties to a Bunker Dispute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1179.4 The Contract of Sale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Contents Module 1


9.5 Pre-delivery Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1209.6 Procedures during Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1219.7 Post-delivery Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1229.8 Charterparties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1229.9 Time Charterparties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1229.10 Voyage Charterparties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1249.11 A Few Key Notes on Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1259.12 Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1269.13 Notes of Protest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1279.14 Collection of Evidence in Case of Occurrence

before Analysis Results Are Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

10. SHIPBUILDING CONTRACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

10.1 Nature of Shipbuilding Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12810.2 Pre-contract Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13110.3 Formation of Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13110.4 Types of Contractual Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13210.5 The Express Terms of a Shipbuilding Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

10.5.1 Pre-delivery Inspection (Trials) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13310.5.2 Delivery of the Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

10.5.3 Warranties under the Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

10.6 The Implied Terms under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13510.7 Main Obligations and Rights of the Parties

under a Shipbuilding Contract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13510.8 More Specific Issues of Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

10.8.1 Increase in Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

10.8.2 Responsibility of the Seller and Buyer for Defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

11. SHIP REPAIR CONTRACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

11.1 Possible Sources of Dispute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13711.2 How to Avoid A Contract Dispute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139


12. HULL DISPUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

12.1 Particular Average: The Cost of Repairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

13. MASTER AND CREW EMPLOYMENT TRAINING SAFETY . . . . . . . . . 147

14. LITIGATION VERSUS ARBITRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

LIST OF APPENDIX SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

APPENDIXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Module 1 Contents

Copyright IIR Limited 2013. All rights reserved.

These materials are protected by international copyright laws. This manual is only for the use of course participants undertaking this course. Unauthorised use, distribution, reproduction or copying of these materials either in whole or in part, in any shape or form or by any means electronically, mechanically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, including, without limitation, using the manual for any commercial purpose whatsoever is strictly forbidden without prior written consent of IIR Limited.

This manual shall not affect the legal relationship or liability of IIR Limited with, or to, any third party and neither shall such third party be entitled to rely upon it. All information and content in this manual is provided on an as is basis and you assume total responsibility and risk for your use of such information and content. IIR Limited shall have no liability for technical errors, editorial errors or omissions in this manual; nor any damage including but not limited to direct, punitive, incidental or consequential damages resulting from or arising out of its use.


1. INTRODUCTION

This course aims to introduce you to and familiarise you with a variety of wet 1-001 and dry shipping matters from which maritime disputes may arise and also with different avenues of dispute resolution: litigation, arbitration and mediation.

The material was written with readers from different backgrounds in mind and 1-002 therefore I assume no previous legal knowledge.

The first module is substantially more extensive than it was probably expected 1-003 because it covers a wide range of sources of maritime disputes. Our purpose for this was to offer a better and enriched understanding of the complicated and technical nature of the law in these areas. The material is presented in a simplified and comprehensive way so that the readers will easily grasp the subject matters yet sufficiently discussed. The main focus is on international and English legislation but a taste is also given from other jurisdictions. We welcome of course the candidates contributions in respect of the laws and practice of their countries on our interactive forum.

A variety of methods has been used to facilitate the learning process as the main 1-004 approach is a hands-on, practical one. Thus, in addition to the theoretical analysis of the subjects we also include relevant cases. You will find statutory materials, standard form contracts, and forms used in negotiations in the appendices. Coursework exercises are designed to aid the understanding and learning of the subject.An inspirational feature of this course is that it touches upon shipping and 1-005 commercial matters and methods of effective dispute resolution which have long-standing historical roots and practices but they also have a proven dynamic nature through the perpetual efforts of the international community to respond to the new needs arising from incidents and today's globalised approach.

Module 1 Introduction


LEARNING OUTCOMES

After successfully completing this module you will:

Have been introduced to the principal concepts of wet and dry shipping disputes

Identify the key issues, liabilities and legal consequences arising from a breach of contract or statutory responsibilities

Recognise the purpose and function of the standard contract forms and effective contract negotiations and drafting in avoiding maritime disputes

Understand the basis of international legislation in its role to prevent or resolve issues arising from accidents and other maritime disputes

1.1 WET SHIPPING

This part of the material deals with the safety regulations in navigation and the 1-006 liabilities and claims arising from the breach of collision regulations from the vessels operation, salvage, general average and marine pollution which are usually called wet topics in contrast with dry shipping which mainly refers to cargo and charterparty claims.


2. COLLISIONS

2.1 INTRODUCTION

In the course of business practice it is unavoidable that incidents due to 1-007 negligence of employees or officers may occur which will raise criminal and civil liabilities for the owners, managers, officers and the crew.

Criminal liability1-008 . Failure to comply with the Collision Regulations regardless of whether the breach resulted in a collision or not has been made a criminal offence under the Merchant Shipping Acts. Section 85 of the MSA 1995 provides that the Secretary of State has power to make regulations relating to health and safety on ships a contravention of which is an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine or on indictment by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and a fine.

The provisions of the Criminal Damage Act (CDA) 1971 contain provisions for 1-009 the intentional or reckless damage to property of another and for endangering or threatening the life of another without lawful excuse.

Where a collision between ships or between a ship and a fixed or floating object 1-010 is caused deliberately or recklessly, the provisions for the offence of the wilful damage of property will apply.

The general principles of criminal law apply in cases of loss of life caused by 1-011 criminal gross negligence.

(Modern Maritime Law and Risk Management. Second edition, by Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard, Informa, London, 2009, pp. 549-560)Civil liability1-012 . Collisions between ships lead to claims and frequently to litigation. The facts, i.e. how exactly an incident occurred, are the principal concern of lawyers and expert witnesses as the principles of law will apply to these facts. Liability in every collision case arises from the tort of negligence from the person who caused the damage. In English law negligence arises if three elements are established: (a) duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant, (b) breach of that duty, and (c) damage resulting from the breach of that duty. The claimant bears the burden of proof.

The choice of jurisdiction is a significant issue when a collision case ends in 1-013 litigation. In most of the cases either the parties agree the jurisdiction or, frequently, the insurers of the ships involved, since the financial consequences of a collision are to a large extent covered by them.

In this chapter we will discuss the Collision Regulations, legal issues such as 1-014 liability and damages and the main stages involved in arranging the procedure in the aftermath of a collision.

(Maritime Law, Second edition, Edited by Professor Yvonne Baatz, Sweet and Maxwell, 2011, pp. 242-243)

Module 1 Collisions


2.2 THE COLLISION REGULATIONS

Attempts have been made historically to draft uniform rules applicable to vessel 1-015 collisions which have resulted in international conventions. The need for uniform rules is greater when collisions occur on the high seas between vessels under different flags. A brief account of the main international and domestic legislation is given below:

Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (as amended).

The practice and custom of seamen is the origin of the regulations which aim to 1-016 prevent collisions at sea. Collision actions in England are heard in the Admiralty Court which is part of the Queens Bench Division of the High Court of Justice.

The need to introduce rules to prevent collisions emerged from the introduction 1-017 of fast steamships in the 19th century. A landmark development was made in 1840 as the London Trinity House set out regulations which had advisory nature but did not have statutory effect. In 1846 Parliament enforced the Steam Navigation Act 1846 with the purpose of giving statutory force to the obligations provided in the regulations and imposed penalties upon masters of ships for disobedience. Since then the regulations have been amended and updated many times.

Nowadays the International Maritime Organisation co-ordinates, makes 1-018 recommendations and revises the Collision Regulations. The present Regulations are the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) 1972 which were produced under the auspices of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and revised the previous 1960 Collision Regulations. Britain incorporated the Collision Regulations 1972 in 1977 Collision Regulations and Distress Signals Order 1977 (SI 982) which were amended by Resolution A464(xi) of the IMO. The scope within which the 1972 Regulations had the force of law was in all British ships on the high seas and all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels and in foreign ships entering the UK territorial waters. The Regulations were amended in 1983, 1989 and 1991. The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1983 (SI 708) revoked the 1977 Order in order to comply with the amendments of the 1972 Regulations. The 1983 Regulations were amended in 1989 and 1991 which were then repealed by the UK Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No. 75). In accordance with the Convention further amendments were made in November 2003. They are subject to the MSA 1995 as according to section 85 the Secretary of State may make such provision as he considers appropriate. Departure from strict compliance with the Regulations is permissible when in certain circumstances this is necessary in order to avoid immediate danger.

The Collision Regulations include provisions for the care, skill, responsibility, 1-019 good seamanship and navigation. They consist of 38 Rules and are divided in five parts (A to E). Part A (Rules 13) is general; Part B provides Steering and Sailing Rules; Part C deals with lights and shapes; Part D provides the details for sound and light signals; and Part E allows exemption for certain older vessels regarding lights. There are also four Annexes containing provisions for the

Collisions Module 1


positioning and technical details as to how lights and shapes should be displayed; the obligation of use of additional signals by fishing vessels fishing in close proximity; technical details of sound signal appliances; distress signals and the use of flags. The 1972 Regulations also introduced (in rule 10) the concept of Traffic Separation Schemes in congested waters.

The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) 1-020 1972, as amended, have international application. Local rules relating to harbours, rivers, inland waters of the states may vary them but, as it is stated in reg. 1(b), ...such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these rules. The rules are a code of good practice and not a code of law. They therefore provide that all dangers and special circumstances should be considered even if this results in departure from strict compliance to the rules in order to avoid immediate danger.

International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with respect to Collision Between Vessels 1910 (The 1910 Collision Convention).

This Convention was incorporated into English law by the Maritime Conventions 1-021 Act 1911 and introduced in England the principle of liability in proportion to blame, and therefore the concept of contributory negligence. The owner of a ship involved in a collision is liable to make payment for the damage suffered as a result of the collision in proportion to his ships fault. There is no definition of the fault in the Convention but it is internationally recognised by the courts that this effectively means a breach of the principles set out in the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.

Another two important legal principles were established by this Convention. 1-022 Firstly, that where two or more ships involved in collision are in fault, liability for death and personal injury shall be joint and several, subject to a right of recourse between the ships themselves and, secondly, that the time bar for commencing legal proceedings in connection with a collision shall be two years (Article 7 incorporated into English law by MSA 1995 section 190)

International Convention on Certain Rules Concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision 1952 (entered into force in 1955).International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Penal Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision or other Incidents of Navigation 1952.

Draft Rules for the Assessment of Damages in Maritime Collisions 1988, known as the Lisbon Rules.

Modern Maritime Law and Risk Management. Second edition, by Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard, Informa, London, 2009, pp. 533-534

Chorley and Giles Shipping law, Eighth edition, by N JJ Gaskell-C Debattista and RJSwatton, Pitman Publishing, London, 1995, pp.369-373

Maritime Law, Second edition, Edited by Professor Yvonne Baatz, Sweet and Maxwell, 2011, pp. 247-248

ICS Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers 2011/12 Centenary Edition, Shipping Law, Whitherby Shipping Business, pp. 49-58

Module 1 Collisions


2.3 BREACH OF THE REGULATIONS

As aforementioned, breach of the Regulations results in a criminal offence and 1-023 also a civil case for damage.

Which ships are subject to the Collision Regulations?1-024 The Collision Regulations (COLREGS) apply to:1-025

Sea-going vessels: the Convention specifically refers to collisions between sea-going vessels or between sea-going vessels and vessels of inland navigation (Article 1). So, we must understand that collisions between vessels of inland navigation or with maritime objects such as off-shore platforms, buoys, docks, etc. are not subject to this convention.All British ships wherever they may be and to all foreign ships within UK waters. Her Majestys ships are exempt from the provisions of the MSA 1995 and therefore to the Collision Regulations being subject to it (section 308(1)). However, the Royal Navy obeys to Collision Regulations as it is provided by the Queens Regulations, which are broadly the same as the COLREGS.

Non-naval Government ships are not subject to the Regulations. Section 308 of the MSA 1995, however, provides that for such ships and any ships held for the benefit of the Crown, may be registered by Order in Council as British ships, so that the Act will apply. Therefore, since the Collision Regulations are subject to it they will also apply, with exceptions and amendments, under the provisions of the Order in Council.

Section 309 extends the application of such Order in Council to ships in the service of the government by a demise charter to the Crown. Although no orders have yet been made under these provisions it is considered good seamanship that such ships, although they are not obliged by statute to comply with the Regulations, will conform to them.

Modern Maritime Law and Risk Management. Second edition, by Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard, Informa, London, 2009, p. 535-536

2.4 WHO IS LIABLE?

The owner, master and any other party responsible for the conduct of the vessel 1-026 is each guilty for an offence where the Regulations are breached.

Strict compliance is required. The prosecution does not need to prove the 1-027 intention of the defendant to break the Regulations. It suffices to be proved that he intended the conduct which resulted to the breach. In Taylor v O Keefe (The Nordic Clansman ), during the navigation of the vessel Nordic Clansman through the Strait of Hormuz, the master of the ship ordered to pass through the Strait. This was in breach of the Collision Regulations but the master considered that the order was lawful. The master was charged with the offence of infringement of the Collision Regulations on the basis that his conduct amounted to wilful fault as he was aware of his acts, had the intention for them and he

Collisions Module 1


was not acting lawfully. The defendant claimed that in order1 for the terms wilful fault to apply the court would also have to establish he was aware and appreciated that his act was wrong which could not be established since the defendant believed that his actions were lawful. The court discussed the scope of the mens rea of the offence in connection with the wilful fault and held that the master was criminally liable on the basis of the principle ignoratia juris non excusat (ignorance of law is not an excuse).A defence for the persons charged is to prove that they took all reasonable steps 1-028 to avoid committing the offence.

Masters may be criminally responsible even if they misinterpret the Rules 1-029 although the Rules allows deliberate infringement. Infringements are recorded on tape in the Dover Strait where coastguards keep a radar watch on vessels and incidents can be replayed.

Chorley and Giles Shipping law, Eighth edition, by N JJ Gaskell-C Debattista and RJSwatton, Pitman Publishing, London, 1995, pp.373-374.

Duygu Damar, International Max Planck Research School for Maritime Affairs at the University of Hamburg. Wilful Misconduct in International Transport Law, Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht, 2011, London-New York, p.29.

2.5 VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Collisions, in most of the cases, are the result of negligence of the crew.1-030

The shipowner is not only liable for his own negligence but he is also 1-031 vicariously liable for the crews defaults as they are his servants (i.e. employees) unless their conduct is outside the remit of their employment. This liability is called vicarious as it results from the character of the employer and it emerges from the contract of employment between the wrongdoer and the shipowner.

The crew is also personally liable1-032 . In Adler v Dickinson,2 a passenger on a steamship was injured when she fell from its gangplank. Her fall was due to the careless handling of the plank by two sailors. Her contract included an exemption clause against personal injury arising from or occasioned by the negligence of the companys servants. The claimant did not sue the company on the basis of the contract but the servants in tort. Her claim was successful and the master was held to be not vicariously liable for the fault of the crew members but personally liable as he failed to supervise the berthing.

Where the wrongdoer is not a member of the crew, it is of pivotal importance 1-033 to establish whether he/she was acting as a servant or agent of the shipowner or as an independent contractor (e.g. salvors). In the latter case, the shipowner is liable only if it can be proved that he did not show reasonable care in his choice of the contractor. In Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Ltd v Coggins

1 [1984] 1 Lloyds Rep. 31 at 3132, QBD.

2 [1955] 1 QB 158.

Module 1 Collisions


& Griffiths (Liverpool) Ltd and MacFarlane,3 Coggins and Griffiths (a stevedoring company) hired a crane and a driver for loading work from the appellant. The driver handled the crane negligently and injured Mr McFarlane (a worker on the dock). The appellant had the right to control the drivers handling of the crane which was held to make the driver an employee (servant) of the Board and therefore made the appellant vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver.

Pilots are professionals and act as independent contractors although the 1-034 port authorities license them. The mere licensing does not make the port authority liable (section 22(8) of the Pilot Act 1987) but a port authority may be liable, for instance, for not providing sufficient and experienced pilots. Section 16 of the Pilotage Act 1987 provides that the shipowner is vicariously liable for negligent acts or omissions of compulsory pilots. The pilot (compulsory or voluntary), while on board a ship, is considered to be the employee of the shipowner. The shipowner may claim against a negligent compulsory pilot. The liability of the port authorities and the pilots are limited to 1,000 (section 22 of the PA 1987) plus the earnings of the pilot for the assignment.Salvors are independent contractors and have full control of navigation for 1-035 the vessel to be salved. Salvors are therefore exposed to liability for breach of duty of care to the salved property and third parties.

Tugs and tows. The vessel under tow will always be vicariously liable for 1-036 the loss or damage caused by the tug. The maxim tug is servant of the tow was applied in The Niobe David M'Cowan v Baine and Johnston (The Niobe)4 where the underwriters had insured the ship Niobe by a policy of marine insurance from the Clyde (in tow) to Cardiff and/or Penarth while there and from there to Singapore and for 30 days after arrival whilst in port. The agreement contained a clause that if the ship hereby insured shall come into collision with any other ship or vessel and the insured shall in consequence thereof become liable to pay, and shall pay, to the persons interested in such other ship or vessel, any sum or sums of money, to pay the assured a certain proportion of the sum paid.

During the time the 1-037 Niobe was towed to Cardiff her tug collided with and sank another vessel, whose owners claimed damages from the Niobe and the tug. The owners of the Niobe took action against one of the underwriters in order to pay his proportion. According to the sum paid by them for the collision the underwriter pleaded that he had no liability under the policy from damage arising from collision with the Niobe. The court in this case had to decide on whether the collision with the tug was a collision with the ship (Niobe), the vessel under tow within the provisions of the policy. It was held that the collision of the tug with the damaged vessel must be considered as the collision of the ship (Niobe) with another vessel and therefore the underwriters were liable.

The application of this rule, however, should be tested according to the extent to 1-038 which the tow controls the actions of the tug and the resulting liability. In The

3 [1946] 2 All ER 345.

4 [1891] AC 401.

Collisions Module 1


Devonshire5 a dumb barge sank because of a collision between its tug with the Devonshire. The tug was partly to blame for the collision but the tow was wholly innocent. As the tug had sole control of the navigation the owners of the dumb barge were successful in obtaining full recovery from the Devonshire despite the fault of the tug.

Port authorities. 1-039 A port authority is under a statutory and common law duty of care to provide navigational safety. It may therefore be liable to ships using its facilities if it is careless and breaches this duty.

Shipbuilders and ship-repairers.1-040 Where a collision or death or personal injury occurs due to a defective building or repairs to a ship the shipbuilders or ship-repairers will be liable for negligence under common law and statute (section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987). The shipowner, demise charterer or manager of the ship which caused collision damage to a third party due to defective building or repairs will have to produce evidence that (a) he had appointed competent repairers with due care, (b) he had paid due attention to any signs of malfunctioning, and (c) that reasonable care and skill could not have detected the defect. The employer, shipowner, or demise charterer will be liable to their own employees who may be injured on board the ship due to defective building and equipment (section 1 of the Employers Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969). In practice the insurance policy will indemnify the assured for liability incurred by the collision to third parties.

Shipping law. Fifth edition, by Simon Baughen, Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York, 2012, pp.262-263.

Hong Kong Contracts by Carole Chui and Derek Roebuck, Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong, 1997, p.130.

Modern Maritime Law and Risk Management. Second edition, by Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard, Informa, 2009, London, pp. 559-569

2.6 STANDARD OF CARE

The conduct of those navigating a ship involved in a collision will be judged in 1-041 the court by the standards of prudent seamanship. The court will decide upon the facts presented and the assessment will be based on compliance with the standards of the Collision Regulations. The role of the witnesses and the experts is therefore very significant. The first instance judge will rarely be challenged unless a pivotal fact of the incident is deemed to have been misinterpreted or the appellate court considers that certain reasons presented as to why a vessel is to blame are not valid.

The Collision Regulations and the unwritten rules of good seamanship apply to 1-042 the extent that they are included in the provisions of the law of the particular state. For instance, in The Esso Brussels SS CV Sea Witch v SS Esso Brussels (Belgium),6 a ship which was in Belgian waters did not use sound attention

5 [1912] AC 634.

6 [1973] 2 Lloyds Rep. 73.

Module 1 Collisions


signals when the collision occurred. It was held that although this is provided by the Collision Regulations the ship was not at fault since the local port regulations prohibited the use of such signals.

Colliding shipowners have to prove that the other was in breach of its duty of 1-043 care.

A shipowner whose crew failed to meet the standards of prudent seamanship 1-044 may use the defence that their conduct was due to the agony of the moment. In the Bywell Castle7 in a collision with The Princess Alice which resulted in a great loss of life the view of the Court of Appeal was that the Princess Alice was to blame for not complying with the regulations of the Thames Conservancy Board which provided that: If two vessels under steam are meeting end on, or nearly end on, so as to involve a risk of collision, the helm of both shall be put to port, so that each may pass on the port side of the other. The Court of Appeal held that the Princess Alice was at fault and although the last minute manoeuvre of the master of the Bywell Castle who turned into her instead of turning away from her was wrong, it was not the cause of the accident. The reason for this as stated by Brett LJ was that: ...when one ship, by her wrongful act, suddenly puts another ship into a position of difficulty of this kind, we cannot expect the same amount of skill as we should under the circumstances.

This favourable consideration of the seamanship, however, does not apply when 1-045 he has the choice of alternatives any of which would avoid the collision and yet he chooses to do one thing which is almost certain to cause it and does contribute to it.

Shipping Law. Fifth edition, by Simon Baughen, Routledge. Taylor and Francis Group, London, 2012, pp. 266-267.

The Story of the Paddle Steamer, by Bernard Dumpleton, Venton, Eastebourne, 2002, p. 64.

Marsden on Collisions at Sea, by Simon Gault, Steven J. Hazelwood, M. Tettenborn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2003, p. 72.

2.7 DUTY TO ASSIST

Masters and persons in charge of vessels are under a statutory duty to assist 1-046 other ships and any person in danger at sea. Annex IV of the Collision Regulations 1972 provide for the use of one or more of the distress signals in order to show the need for immediate assistance. The master alone has the authority to order a distress signal if he is satisfied that his vessel is in serious danger or that another ship is in this position and unable to send the signal.

Once the master receives a signal of distress he must proceed with all speed to 1-047 assist the persons in danger unless this is unreasonable or he is released from the obligation because other ships have responded to the demand or he was informed that the need for assistance ceased.

7 [1879] 4 PD 219.

Collisions Module 1


Following a collision ships must exchange their names, the names of their home 1-048 ports, the ports from which they are proceeding and for which they are bound. They are also under the duty to stand by and assist each other, provided that they do not unreasonably set themselves in danger. The duty to offer assistance is an absolute one.

Chorley and Giles Shipping law, Eighth edition, by N JJ Gaskell-C Debattista and RJSwatton, Pitman Publishing, London, 1995, pp.374-376

2.8 DAMAGES

The aim of damages in tort is to put the injured party back into the position as if 1-049 the tort had not occurred (restitutio in integrum).As the very word implies a collision occurs when there is a physical contact between 1-050 the vessels (not necessarily between their hulls but also contact with an anchor chain, or with a fishing net) (direct collision). The contact may take place between vessel bodies, equipment on board the vessels or cargo carried by the vessels. It is of no importance if the vessels are underway or one of them is moored.

The provisions of The Collision Convention 1910, Article 13 expand the scope of 1-051 application of the rules on collisions to cases when a vessel by its manoeuvres or in similar ways causes damage to another vessel or to persons or goods on board although no collision takes place between the vessels (indirect collision). An example of an indirect collision is when a vessel breaches navigation rules and proceeds with excessive speed and as a result to this it causes her to sink.8

A vessel may also cause damage by its negligence, given the damage is not too 1-052 remote, to another vessel without actual contact. The basis of the claim is that the negligence of the defendant ship caused damage to the claimant. In an English case (The Carnival),9 in unusual circumstances a vessel was considered to have caused damage to another vessel by its negligence without actual contact. The vessel Danilovgrad was alongside the Setramar berth, north of the port of Ravenna, in the process of becoming securely moored when another vessel the Carnival proceeded along the canal assisted by two tugs. The headway of the Carnival as it was passing the Danilovgrad caused movement in the water which resulted in the latter coming into contact with the edge of the quay. The vessels shell plating was pierced by the end plate as it pressed against a fender and water flowed into the hold damaging the vessels cargo. The owners of the Danilovgrad claimed damages from the owners of the Carnival on the basis of negligent navigation which caused damage. The Court of Appeal held that the Carnival was indeed negligent in navigation as it passed Danilovgrad (a) before it was securely moored and (b) all the lines were out and made fast. The defendant argued that there was remoteness between damage and its negligence but the court rejected it.If the court has found negligence of the crew of a colliding vessel it will consider 1-053 the following factors in the assessment of blame:

8 The Royal Eagle (1950) 84 LlL Rep. 543.

9 The Carnival [1994] 2 Lloyds Rep. 14, CA.

Module 1 Collisions


It must be proved that negligence caused or at least contributed to the (a) collision (causative potency). Any non-causative negligence will not be taken into consideration in the assessment of the division of blame and will be left out of the reckoning of the Court.10

Even if the claimant proves that the negligence of the defendant caused (b) the collision (causation in fact) and that the negligence was the cause or one of the causes of the damage (causation in law), the claimant must also prove that the damage suffered is not too remote (The Wagon Mound (No. 1): Overseas Tankship UK Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd),11 i.e. that the damage in the ordinary course of things would flow from his wrongful act, the consequences were direct and not remote and that the defendant could reasonably have foreseen the kind of damage suffered by the claimant.

The claimant does not have the duty to mitigate his loss but he is under the obligation to take reasonable steps to minimise the damage suffered by the defendants breach. Foreseeability is not an issue for consideration in mitigation for damages as it was held in the Humber Oil Terminal Trustee Ltd v Owners of the Ship Sivand (The Sivand).12

In the assessment of blame the court will also take into account the (c) defence of the agony of the moment. If a wrongdoing ship causes another ship to make a manoeuvre urgently in order to avoid collision its actions will be treated more favourably (see above under heading 2.6 Standard of Care and The Englantine, Credo and Inez13).

Maritime Law, Sixth edition, by Christopher Hill, LLP, London-Hong Kong, 2003, p. 284.

Maritime Collision under UAE Maritime Law. A Comparative Study, by Abdula Hassan Mohamed, Issue No. 37-January 2009, pp. 94-95, available on http://sljournal.uaeu.ac.aeRecovery of loss is possible only in connection with physical damage and its 1-054 consequent financial loss. The assessment of damages for physical and consequential loss will depend on whether or not the collision rendered the claimants ship a total loss. If the ship was a total loss then damages will be awarded on the basis of the value of the ship on the date the collision occurred rather than the end of the planned journey. If the ship can be repaired, damages will be principally calculated according to the costs of repairs. Any benefit that the claimant may have from the repairs, such as an increase of the vessels value from the use of new materials or repairs which would have been necessary to be carried out anyway in order to enable the ship to pass her Classification Society survey may not be for the credit of the defendant (see The Gazelle,14 The Bermina15 respectively).

10 Owners of the Global Mariner v Owners of the Atlantic Crusader [2005] 1 Lloyds Rep. 699.

11 [1961] AC 388.

12 [1998] 2 Lloyds Rep. 97, CA.

13 [1990] 2 Lloyds Rep. 390.

14 [1844] 2 W Rob 279.

15 (1886) 12 PD 36.

Collisions Module 1


Regardless of whether the ship was a total loss or not an additional sum is 1-055 awarded as compensation to the claimant for loss of freight or profits at the end of the voyages as fixed by the vessels charterers deducted by contingencies and wear and tear. Even if the claimant is not trading the vessel he will still be entitled to the award of compensation for its loss of use. There is a convention in the Admiralty Court that a shipowner is entitled to claim 1% on its claim in a collision action for interruption of his trading without the need to prove this. This convention is not available to cargo owners in a collision action (The Kumanova (Owners) v Owners of The Massira16). Loss of or damage to cargo will also be taken into consideration for the determination of compensation.

Shipowners are also liable for damages caused by their ships to harbours, docks 1-056 and piers owned by public authorities (section 74 of the Harbour Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847) for the costs of their reinstatement and repair but not for consequential loss which may be recovered under negligence.

Section 190 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 provides a two-year bar on 1-057 collision actions.

Division of loss1-058 . Regarding the division of loss section 187 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 which repealed and replaced section 1 of the Maritime Conventions Act 1911 provides:

1. Where, by the fault of two or more ships, damage or loss is caused to one or more of those ships, to their cargoes or freight, or to any property on board, the liability to make good the damage or loss shall be in proportion to the degree in which each ship was in fault.

2. If, in any such case, having regard to all the circumstances, it is not possible to establish different degrees of fault, the liability shall be apportioned equally.

3. This section applies to persons other than the owners of a ship who are responsible for the fault of the ships, as well as the owners of a ship and where, by virtue of any charter or demise, or for any other reason, the owners are not responsible for the navigation and management of the ship, this section applies to the charterers or other persons for the time being so responsible instead of the owners.

4. Nothing in this section shall operate so as to render any ship liable for any loss or damage to which the fault of the ship has not contributed.

Currency in which damages are awarded1-059 . Judges and arbitrators are rather liberal in their choice of currency in which they award damages. Damages are awarded either in sterling or in the currency in which the innocent party directly suffered the loss or, the currency of the country where the claimant actually felt the loss and which is probably a home based currency.

Shipping Law. Fifth edition, by Simon Baughen, Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York, 2012, pp. 269,271

16 [1998] 2 Lloyds Rep. 301, QB.

Module 1 Collisions


Both to blame collision clause.1-060 Until 1975 blame in collision litigation in the USA was either 100% on either of the two colliding vessels, or divided equally. In 1975 the US Supreme Court adopted the proportional fault principle in the Reliable Transfer17 decision. The US Law has always considered cargo innocent, and therefore entitled to recover 100% of its claim from the non-carrying vessel if the latter is to blame and the owners of that vessel are entitled to claim contribution from the other.

The entitlement for such an action, however, exonerates the carrying vessel from 1-061 the consequences of negligent navigation which is contained in the provisions of the US COGSA and the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules. Thus the shipowners have protected themselves by including into their contracts of carriage with the shipper/cargo owner a both to blame collision clause which was drafted to entitle them to seek back from the shipper/cargo owner the 50% contribution which they may be under the obligation to pay to the non-carrying vessel in a collision.

Such a clause is found in many charterparties, e.g. GENCON 1994 clause 11; 1-062 ASBATANKVOY clause 20 (b)(iv). Institute Cargo Clauses clause 3 (A, B and C) covers cargo interests for this liability).

2.9 PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF DEALING WITH A COLLISION INCIDENT

In a collision incident hull underwriters and cargo insurers have interest as 1-063 damage insurers whereas hull underwriters and P&I Clubs as liability insurers. Third parties who had property in the vicinity may also suffer damages, general average may be declared and a salvage operation may be called in.

More specifically the insurance interests concerned in collision litigation are:1-064

Hull underwriters(a) in relation to: the insured ships proportion of salvage and general average, voyage and port expenses payable to port where the repairs are undertaken, repairs to damage suffered by insured ship, three-fourths of third party liability for damage to the other colliding ship and cargo (Running Down Clause (RDC)).P&I Club for: (b) death and/or personal injury claims, pollution, liability to cargo on entered vessel, one-fourth of the RDC if not covered by the hull underwriter, other risks.

Defence (FD&D) Club for(c) : proportion of legal fees for uninsured items of claim and to claim for recovery of owners loss of earning.

Shipowner for(d) : loss of earnings from detention due to repairs for collision damage.

The lawyer must keep all these interests advised on the development of the case 1-065 and seek for their approval for every significant step taken.

Arrangements for the surveys, the security for payment of damages, the 1-066 collection of relevant documents and the witness statements play a major role in the aftermath of a collision and the lawyer will frequently coordinate them.

17 421 US 397 (1975).

Collisions Module 1


Surveys. 1-067 Refer to the damage suffered by the client ship as a result of the collision, damage suffered by the opponents ship as a result of the collision (without prejudice to liability), speed and angle of blow, in relation to the damage to both ships.

Security1-068 . The P&I Club of the ship concerned usually issues a letter of guarantee confirming payment of damages due, payable at the conclusion of the litigation. The form of such a guarantee is negotiable, but in English practice the City of London Admiralty Solicitors Group has published terms on standard forms for all collision security.

Investigation of a collision1-069 . It is imperative that the facts of a collision at sea are established with reasonable certainty and as quickly as possible. The role of the lawyer conducting the investigation is to collate the ships documents including log books, charts and any automatic data logging devices installed on the ship, interview the officers and crew members on watch on the bridge and in the engine room, and any other member of the crew who saw anything relevant, and prepare a written statement of each witnesss evidence. These statements are, according to the English Civil Procedure Rules, privileged (i.e. they cannot be forcibly disclosed to the other parties to the litigation without the agreement of the party on whose behalf they were made). In practice, however, most of these statements are disclosed in English collision proceedings and treated as evidence of the facts presented, unless the witness is called to give oral evidence. The purpose of this practice is to save time and costs.

Independent evidence1-070 . This evidence is of considerable value in a collision case, but not always easy to obtain. The Speed and Angle of Blow Survey Report is in a sense independent since it is based on the crumbled metal of both ships, but it is also an expression of professional opinion because it is drafted by an experienced engineer surveyor. A videotape recording of the radar showing movements of the ships concerned made by an official body such as Dover Coastguard or other Vessel Traffic Surveillance (VTS) service (to be found in major ports such as London, Southampton) also has a substantial evidential value. The lawyer should act quickly to ensure that the recordings are preserved. Most such bodies maintain a neutral attitude and make the information and tapes available to the enquiries of all parties involved.

Independent evidence may be obtained from the officer on watch on another 1-071 ship in the vicinity of the collision, who may have observed the movements of the two ships on radar. Although it is difficult to discover the existence of such evidence an efficient practitioner should spend time and money to make enquiries, since the value of such independent evidence is very significant.

Jurisdiction is usually established by agreement, but in the absence of such 1-072 agreement the parties may manoeuvre in order to establish a jurisdiction which favours their case. This will be based on the appraisal of a range of factors such as:

Whether the ship for whom the lawyer is acting is likely to be the recovering or the paying party in the litigation. If the lawyer represents the recovering party, then he/she should aim for the jurisdiction which offers a fair and objective judgment issued as quickly as possible and which will be

Module 1 Collisions


enforceable without undue procedural delays. In the latter case he/she should attempt to achieve a jurisdiction where the principles of Limitation of Liability will be applied.

The probable division of blame between the two ships and the likely amount of the damages ultimately recoverable. An informed estimate will not be possible in the immediate aftermath of the collision, and therefore the practitioner should conduct continuous reappraisal from further information coming from surveyors, shipowners and other parties involved in the litigation.

The availability of witnesses, particularly pilots if they were on the bridge of one or both ships, or other sources of important evidence.

The Collision (Civil Jurisdiction) Convention 1952 contains a number of provisions 1-073 for the establishment of jurisdiction in collision cases, but since these are subject to contrary agreement of the parties, this convention is rarely applied in cases.

In most cases an agreement is concluded. A typical form of such an agreement 1-074 is Form ASG2 to be found at http://www.admiraltysolicitorsgroup.com.

2.10 COLLISION LITIGATION IN THE ADMIRALTY COURT

In England collision cases are heard by the Admiralty Court, which is part of the 1-075 Queens Bench Division of the High Court of Justice. The applicable rules regarding procedural matters are provided in Pt 61 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and in the Admiralty Practice Direction.The document known as the Collision Statement of Case, formerly Preliminary 1-076 Act, plays a significant role as it contains a series of questions in connection with the circumstances of the collision. Each party is required to complete and file it at the court without knowing the answers of their opponents. The answers submitted are considered to be admissions of fact by the party filing it, and that party may not proceed with a case inconsistently with their Collision Statement of Case without the leave (permission) of the judge.The Elder Brethren of Trinity House, who are retired ships masters, sit with the 1-077 Admiralty Judge as Nautical Assessors and advise him on matters of ship handling and seamanship. The parties therefore do not normally undertake to call expert evidence on these aspects.

The usual practice in collision cases in England is that the liability (the division 1-078 of blame) for the collision is decided separately from the quantum of damages. The sums recoverable are usually negotiated and settled directly between the solicitors for the parties but if they fail to agree, the disputed issue(s) will be submitted to and decided by the Admiralty Registrar (para. 13 of the Admiralty Practice Direction). Maritime Law, Second edition, Edited by Yvonne Baatz, Sweet & Maxwell, 2011, pp. 242-250


3. GENERAL AVERAGE

3.1 INTRODUCTION

General average is an ancient form of distributing the risk of sea transport. 1-079 General average means general loss in contrast with the particular loss of the marine insurance. Rule A of the York-Antwerp Rules 1994 defines the general average act as follows: There is a general average act when, and only when, any extraordinary sacrifice or expenditure is intentionally and reasonably made or incurred for the common safety for the purpose of preserving from peril the property involved in a common maritime adventure.

The Marine Insurance Act 1906 of the UK defines general average act in 1-080 almost identical terms in section 66(2). The same applies to Canadas Marine Insurance Act, SC 1993, c. 22, section 65(2) and in the Quebec Civil Code 1994, Article 2599.

General average is therefore an equitable sharing, between a shipowner and 1-081 cargo interests, of losses and expenses which occurred during a voyage. The roots of this concept lie in the perception that a voyage is a common adventure between the vessel owner and the cargo owners. Being an equitable doctrine, the core principle of the law of general average is that some parties to the joint adventure should not benefit from the misfortune of other parties. If, for instance, a vessel confronts a storm and the master decides that some cargo must be jettisoned to lighten the vessel in order to give her a better chance to avoid sinking resulting to the vessel and remaining cargo surviving the storm, the consequence would be that the latter will benefit at the expense of the sacrificed cargo. Other examples of situations where general average may be encountered are: when a vessel is aground in a position of peril and damages her hull or machinery in order to refloat; expenses incurred for salvage; and port charges including detention of the vessel when the vessel enters a port of refuge for the common safety. Under the rules of general average the loss suffered by the owners of the sacrificed cargo must be shared rateably to all the parties of the marine adventure, i.e. shipowner and all owners of cargo. In a general average claim there is no need to prove liability in tort or contract.

The five components of a general average loss are: (a) an extraordinary sacrifice 1-082 or expenditure, (b) which is intentionally, and (c) reasonably made, (d) against a peril, (e) in order to benefit the common venture.

3.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The origins of general average is considered to be in the Rhodian law of 1-083 approximately 800 BC which provided that if a ship was in danger and cargo was jettisoned with the purpose of saving the ship, then the latter and the remaining cargo were under an obligation to make a contribution to the owner of the lost

Module 1 General Average


cargo.18 The only existing record of the Rhodian law can be found in Roman law and it has then been repeated and expanded in all the subsequent sea codes until the present day. In England the first decision which made reference to general average was in 179919 and in America in 1798.20

Since then, as commerce evolved and the claims became increasingly 1-084 demanding, the Glasgow Resolutions of 1860, the York-Antwerp Rules of 1864 and the York-Antwerp Rules of 1877 were adopted in response to the need for a uniform method of calculating the contribution of the parties. The York-Antwerp Rules (codified rules on general average) were amended periodically. The most recent version is the York-Antwerp Rules 2004 although they are very rarely incorporated into contracts. The 1994 version remains popular.

The York-Antwerp Rules are not subject to national legislation or international 1-085 conventions but they are included, and therefore imposed, by special clauses in standard form contracts.21

3.3 WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER A GENERAL AVERAGE ACT?

Traditionally the general average act was usually ordered by the master or other 1-086 crew member in authority over the vessel. In the UK, however, the general average act may be ordered by a person outside the common adventure (for instance, a local port authority) if this is imperative for the common safety.22 In the US, only the shipowner, master or a person acting under his authority could order a general average act but at present third parties are also entitled to order it provided that their orders are endorsed by the master (Ralli v Troop23 and The Beatrice24 respectively). The York-Antwerp Rules do not restrict the authority to give orders for a general average act to the master.

3.4 REQUIREMENTS TO BE ENTITLED TO CONTRIBUTION IN GENERAL AVERAGE

For a claimant (ship or cargo) to be entitled to obtain contribution from the 1-087 other parties to the common venture (cargo or ship) it does not suffice to show sacrifice or expenditure or that the reasonable and voluntary act benefited successfully the common venture before the common danger. It is also required that the carrier must not have been at fault in law. At common law a carrier is not entitled to claim contribution in general average from cargo, if the danger which demanded the extraordinary sacrifice or expenditure results from his actionable fault or negligence in law or that of his employees.25

18 C. Abbott (Lord Tenterden), A Treatise of the Law Relative to Merchant Ships and Seamen, (1st edition, London, 1802), p. 273.

19 The Copenhagen [1799] 1 C. Rob. 289 at 293294.

20 Campbell v The Alknomac, 4 Fed. Cas. 1155 at 1156 (No. 2, 350) (DSC 1798).

21 Goulandris Brothers Ltd. v Goldman & Sons Ltd. [1957] 2 Lloyds Rep. 207 at 213214.

22 Papayianni v Grampian SS Co. [1896] 1 Com Cas 448.

23 157 US 386 at 419 (1895).

24 [1924] AMC 914 at 914 (SDNY 1924).

25 Strang, Steel & Co. v A. Scott & Co. (1889) 14 App. Cas. 601 at 608, PC. See also Goulandris Brothers Ltd v B.

Goldman & Sons Ltd [1958] 1 QB 74 at 104.

General Average Module 1


When the carriers fault is actionable (i.e. if the carrier has failed to exercise due 1-088 diligence to ensure that the ship is seaworthy before or at the beginning of the voyage, where the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules apply, and this actionable fault caused the loss or damage) he is not entitled to contribution in general average from cargo.26 If the carriers fault is not actionable under the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules he may claim contribution in general average from cargo. This is the law in the UK.

A causal connection also between the loss and the general average act must be 1-089 proved in order to raise a claim (Rule C of the York-Antwerp Rules 1994 and 2004).Under American law, however, in the past a carrier did not have a right to a 1-090 general average contribution where the peril necessitating the sacrifice or extraordinary expenditure resulted from his fault. Nowadays, this can be modified by an agreement between the cargo and the cargo interest. The majority of current the bills of lading and other contracts of carriage contain a clause the Jason or New Jason clause under which even when the peril was caused by the fault of the carrier he is absolved from liability by law or contract and maintains the right to a general average contribution.27

A party seeking to raise a claim of general average has also to satisfy the 1-091 following factors:

The danger must be common, real and not merely apprehended by the master of the ship.28

The sacrifice or expenditure was real, voluntary and intentional for the purpose of avoiding the peril.29

The sacrifice or expenditure must be necessary. This is to be determined by the master of the ship.30

The attempt to save the imperilled property was successful. If the entire venture is lost, there is no entitlement for a general average contribution.31

3.5 WHAT CONSTITUTES SACRIFICE?

A claim for general average contribution may include sacrifices of cargo, ship 1-092 and tackle or freight.

Cargo1-093 . Jettison is the most common example of general average. The cargo jettisoned must have been stowed in a proper place. If, for instance, the goods

26 The Lendoudis Evangelos [2001] 2 Lloyds Rep. 304 at 306.

27 Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v Cineraria Shipping Co., 894 F. Supp. 1557 (MD Fla. 1995).

28 Nesbitt v Lushington [1792] 4 TR 783.

29 Robinson v Price [1987] 2 QBD 91 at 285.

30 Papayianni & Jeronica v Grampian Steamship Co. Ltd [1896] 1 Com Cas 448.

31 Pirie Co. v Middle Dock Co. (1881) 44 LT 426.



have been stowed on deck without the shippers consent and they are jettisoned the shipowner is in breach of his contract to carry safely and is therefore liable.

Ship and/or tackle1-094 . Sacrifice of ships machinery or tackle necessary for the safety of the whole adventure may raise a claim for general average contribution. The shipowner must undertake all ordinary losses sustained by the ship. However, if the ships tackle is lost because it was used outside the usual purposes to secure her safety it will then be the subject of a general average contribution. If the ship is in danger of sinking and the master deliberately runs her ashore to save the cargo and the ship, the loss of or damage to the ship may be considered as a general average sacrifice.

Freight1-095 . Sacrifice of freight by the shipowner by an act whereby the cargo is preserved gives rise to a general average contribution against the cargo.32 However, if freight is payable in advance the entitlement to a claim for a general average contribution cannot be raised as freight does not depend on the safe arrival of the goods.

3.6 WHAT MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE EXPENDITURE?

Extraordinary expenditure made voluntarily to avoid common danger or extraordinary loss of time and labour voluntarily accepted may give rise to a general average contribution.

Payments for salvage may or may not be general average expenditure. Expenditure on saving both ship and cargo is treated as a general average expense. However, if the cargo has been discharged safely and further operations have taken place in order to float the ship and tow her into repairs, the shipowner will have to undertake these further expenses.

If, in the occurrence of a peril, it has become unsafe for ship and cargo to continue the voyage, the deviation to a port of refuge is a general average act. If, however, the deviation was deemed necessary due to the unseaworthiness of the ship, general average contributions for the expenses may not be recovered.

Where, however, the ship is placed into a port of refuge to repair damage caused by a general average sacrifice, the cost of repairing the ship together with incidental expenses (e.g. warehousing, reloading of cargo if it had to be unloaded to complete the repairs, pilotage) may be included in the general average.

The shipowner or master is entitled to retain the cargo where a general average 1-096 loss has occurred on a voyage until he is paid or the amount due on it for general average is tendered to him. Where cargo has been sacrificed the shipowner is also under the obligation to take all reasonable precautions to protect the interest of persons entitled to a general average contribution either by obtaining deposits in cash or suitable bonds and guarantees.

32 Pirie Co. v Middle Dock Co. (1881) 44 LT 426.

General Average Module 1


The shipowner, cargo owner and a consignee of cargo are liable for general 1-097 average contribution.

Where cargo has been sacrificed, the shipowner must obtain security from other 1-098 cargo before delivering it. Such security normally takes the form of a general average bond (often a Lloyds Average Bond) or an undertaking from a cargo underwriter.33

3.7 THE ADJUSTMENT PROCESS

The procedure for adjusting general average is provided in a contract which 1-099 frequently contains a clause incorporating the York-Antwerp Rules. The process of adjusting a general average sacrifice or expenditure commences with the declaration of general average usually made by the shipowner or through his underwriters. General average claimants shall give notice of the loss or expense in respect of which they claim contribution in writing to a general average adjuster (a marine claims specialist) within 12 months from the date the common maritime adventure was terminated (Rule E of the York-Antwerp Rules 1994 and 2004). In the case of failing such notification a general adjuster may estimate the allowance or the contributory value based on the information given to him. The same applies even if no evidence has been provided to him in support of the claim or no particulars are given in connection with the contributory interest within 12 months of a request for this material (Rule E of the York-Antwerp Rules 1994 and 2004). A general average adjuster is, therefore, responsible to make a very complex decision on the expenses to be acceptable under a general average and the amount payable by each party and prepare a general average statement.

The contract of carriage usually provides that the York-Antwerp Rules apply 1-100 unless the parties choose otherwise. Rule G of the York-Antwerp Rules 1994 and 2004 provide how the general average is adjusted. In the absence of any clause in the contract of carriage the general average is adjusted at the place where the voyage terminates according to the local applicable laws.

The value of sacrificed property and the respective contributory values of the ship 1-101 and saved cargo are calculated as at the date of discharge at the port of destination or as at the date on which the voyage was interrupted and is governed by the law of the place of delivery (York-Antwerp Rule G).34 The same rule applies to expenditure.35 If after the shipowner has incurred general average expenditure at a port of refuge both ship and cargo are lost while completing the voyage the shipowner loses its entitlement to claim from the owners of the cargo.

3.8 THE GENERAL AVERAGE STATEMENT

As aforementioned the actual adjustment and the general average statement is 1-102 prepared by an average adjuster. The general average is apportioned by

33 Castle Insurance Co. v Hong Kong Islands Shipping Co. [1984] AC 226 at 234.

34 Hill v Wilson [1879] 4 CPD 329.

35 Chellew v Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply [1921] 2 KB 627 at 634 and 639.



multiplying the value of each contributory interest by a fraction, composed of the value of all the general average expenditure, divided by the sum of the contributory values. These calculations can be extremely complicated which may result to the whole process to taking years to be completed and the general average statement to be issued.36

The issuance of a general average statement is without any legal effect and 1-103 therefore in the absence of the agreement of the parties it is the court decision or an arbitral award which will quantify the contributions.37

General Average Now and in the Future, by Professor William Tetley, Q.C., pp.3-30, available on .

Admiralty and Maritime Law by Robert Force, Federal Judicial Center, 2004, pp. 195-198.

Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers, Shipping Law, 2011/2012 Centenary Edition, Witherby Shipping Business, pp. 83-85

36 See Pacifi c Employers Ins. Co. v M/V Capt. W.D. Cargill, 751 F. 2d 801 where the general average statement was

issued six years after the casualty occurred.37

The Jute Express [1991] 2 Lloyds Rep. 55 at 6162.


4. SALVAGE

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Salvage is a concept unique to maritime law. Under English law, if a person 1-104 voluntarily saves the property of another on land, he/she is not entitled to a reward for his/her efforts. Where the same service, however, is performed at sea, the person saving the property, the salvor, has an entitlement to a reward, not exceeding the value of the property saved. The reasoning behind the different approach lies in the public policy to provide financial encouragement to vessels to assist other vessels in distress.

The law of maritime salvage is an ancient and important part of the wider law 1-105 governing marine perils and safety at sea. The modern international law which primarily governs salvage is the International Convention on Salvage 1989 (hereafter the Salvage Convention 1989 or the Convention).The law of salvage applies where the following component elements are in place: 1-106 (i) in maritime circumstances, (ii) there is a recognised subject of salvage, (iii) which is in danger, and (iv) a person falling within the classification of salvors (traditionally called a volunteer) (v) is successful or substantially contributes to success in preserving the subject from danger. In the time of sails, salvage was conducted without the conclusion of a contractual relationship between the parties. With the evolution of swift means of communication and the increased use of steam and, more recently, motor driven vessels salvage services are governed more frequently, in part at least, by an agreement or contract. In either case, both the provider and the recipient of salvage services have reciprocal duties.

When salvage services end, the salved value of the preserved property can be 1-107 calculated. The calculations include the upper limit of the salvors reward and the most fundamental of all the relevant factors which must be considered is its assessment, if not already the subject of a binding agreement. The award to the salvor includes a reasonable remuneration for his efforts, reimbursement for his loss or expenditure, plus an additional element of reward to reflect the judicially promoted public policy of encouraging individuals to salve property imperilled at sea. All recognised beneficiaries of salvage services are under the obligation to make a contribution to the Crown and the immunity of foreign sovereign states. The reward is apportioned amongst the various salvors who have participated in the successful salvage.

Salvors remedies for enforcing their claim include a maritime lien in support of 1-108 a right to proceed in rem or in personam. Salvage claims fall within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court, although in the last century salvage claims were increasingly dealt with not judicially but by arbitration rather than judicially. British Shipping Law, Kennedy & Rose. Law of Salvage, by Francis D. Rose, Sweet and Maxwell Thomson Reuters, 7th edn, 2010 pp.1-7.

Module 1 Salvage


FLP2376 - Certificate in Maritime Disputes and Arbitration - Sample Module 1

Documents

Transcript of FLP2376 - Certificate in Maritime Disputes and Arbitration - Sample Module 1