Admiralty procedure reform in India

India has enacted a new law, the Admiralty (Jurisdiction, and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017, replacing laws more than 150 years old. It deals with admiralty jurisdiction, the arrest of ships and other connected proceedings in Indian courts.1

Regulation

Liability for deck cargo and the Hague-Visby Rules: some reflections

The exclusion of deck cargo from the scope of application of the Hague-Visby Rules should not be mistaken for a lack of regulation: liability for deck cargo will in fact be subject to the duties and liabilities provided for by the law applicable to the contract of carriage under which the cargo is carried.

Carriage of Goods, Regulation

Operation of sanctions

A Hong Kong administrative litigation provides some food for thought on the role and duties of flag states and classification societies in relation to UN sanctions.

Regulation

UK register permits “bareboat charter out” – too little, too late?

On 29 March 2019 bareboat chartering registration rules in the UK changed. This article discusses the changes.

Practice and Policy, Regulation

The Court of Appeal has again considered the operation of the Hague-Visby Rules exceptions amidst a spate of significant decisions dealing with the application of some of the key principles underpinning the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules.

In two recent decisions from the Singapore Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, the courts took the step of re-evaluating evidence upon appeal.

Burden of proof

In establishing the burden of proof for a carrier’s negligence under the Hague Rules, the Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of the cargo interests in this judgment, given on 5 December 2018. The carrier as bailee bore the burden of proof for the absence of negligence.

The increase in the mean global atmospheric temperature has exceeded 1°C over pre-industrial levels despite the efforts to stabilise atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations “… at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system …”.

Suspension or interruption of limitation period

This case, originating from the Scottish courts, concerned the application of the time bar provisions in the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea 1974.

In recent years, several attempts have been made at establishing an international agreement on liability and compensation for pollution from offshore oil and gas exploration and exploitation. A reliable and internationally recognised legal and regulatory framework on FPSOs, as ships or as offshore installations, requires a careful examination of the relevant laws and regulations, and the consequences of applying these to FPSOs.

In Mamancochet Mining Ltd v Aegis Managing Agency Ltd and Others [2018] EWHC 2643 (Comm); [2018] Lloyd’s Rep Plus 100 the English High Court was asked to consider the proper interpretation of the “sanction limitation and exclusion clause” in a marine cargo policy.

In Connect Shipping Inc and Another v Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening (The Swedish Club) and Others (The Renos) [2018] EWCA Civ 230; [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 285, the Court of Appeal ruled that SCOPIC expenditure could be included in ascertaining whether a casualty was a constructive total loss.

The recent decision of Teare J in Natwest Markets plc v Stallion Eight Shipping Co SA (MV Alkyon) [2018] EWHC 2033 (Admlty) highlights, yet again, the fundamental injustice of English law concerning the arrest of ships. Sir Bernard Eder raises this issue again in light of this judgment.

Hague Rules time bar and misdelivery

The facts

The claimant were the owners of the vessel Alhani and the defendant was the shipper of a cargo bunker fuel carried on board the vessel. By a bill of lading dated 12 November 2011, it was agreed that the carriage would be from Lome, Togo to Cotnou, Benin.

Hague Rules time bar open to doubt where there is a deviation

In this case, the Commercial Court dealt with a section 68 challenge and appeals on four issues of law under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 from an LMAA arbitration award which had dismissed the counterclaim for “inordinate and inexcusable delay”.

A case decided by Shanghai Maritime Court on 26 April 2018 concerned the law applicable to a cruise ship passenger injury on the high seas. The court also ruled that the cruise operator should lose its entitlement to limit liability under article 13 of the Athens Convention 1974. The judgment in the case, Yang v Carnival Co & plc (The Sapphire Princess) (2016) Shanghai 72 Civil First Instance No 2336, is final and binding on the parties.

The freedom of navigation is one of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”).1 It is set out in UNCLOS articles 58(1) and 87(1)(a), and is recognised under customary international law. A consequence of this freedom is the right to protest at sea, analysed here.

A deliberately set fire

This case concerned the interpretation of article IV rule 2(b) and/or (q) of the Hague-Visby Rules.