Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
87 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Boucher v Lawson 1733
|
Limitation
shipowner held liable in full for theft by master of a cargo of portugese gold coins even though shipowner was in no way complicit in or personally at fault for the theft --> call for change |
|
|
The Aegean Sea 1998
claims subject to limitation |
Limitation
the ship cannot be the object of the wrong |
|
|
CMA Djakarta 2004
|
Limitation
art 2(1)(a) dies not include loss or damage to the ship itself case of carrying dangerous goods cargo liability claims - what if routed through shipowner? cargo damaged aswell as vessel cargo claimants sued shipowners in tort could charterers assert limitation against shipowner's indemnity claim YES - if claim brought in convention country - considered as claim against the fund still a claim 'in respect of loss of or damage to property occurring on board' |
|
|
The Breydon Merchant 1992
|
Limitation
engine room fire - salvors had claim against vessel and cargo cargo owners claimed shipowners couldn't use HV rules and therefore sought indemnity against liability to salvors shipowner could limit in respect of the indemnity claim |
|
|
The Aegean Sea
claims subject to limitation - damage to property |
some claims in respect of loss of profits consequential on loss of cargo in form of escaping oil
this is still damage to property even though not property of the claimant shipowner |
|
|
Huntsman Chemical CO Australia Pty Ltd v SHip ALP Sydney 2009
|
Limitation
claims subject to limitation pure economic loss - YES thane pipe lines under water damaged by vessel - claims for pure economic loss as a result were admissible |
|
|
The Aegean Sea
claims subject to limitation |
limitation
operation of the ship charter nominated unsafe port was this within phrase 'operation of the ship' argued that master navigated the ship, charterer wasn't concerned with the operation NO - this was rejected - 'operation of the ship' encompasses all that goes into the operation of the ship - even port selection |
|
|
Bouygues Offshore SA v Caspian SHipping Co (1998)
|
Limitation
characterisation of the claim concerned with substance rather than wording claim in respect of loss of barge while under tow one basis for claim was misrepresentation of pulling capacity of the tug limitation? YES - fundamentally the owner of the ship was suing because his ship was lost --> loss of property |
|
|
The Leerort
|
Limitation
Breaking Limitation it is only the personal act or omission of a shipowner which defeats right to limit even if master deliberately targets another ship or was idiotic - not good enough such loss - must foresee the particular loss that happens |
|
|
The Marion
|
Limitation
breaking limitation corporate shipowner - who acts for the company in the relevant matter? may delegate a ship manager - ship manager will be the relevant person |
|
|
Nugent v Goss Aviation (2000)
|
Limitation
breaking limitation requisite state of mind greater the obviousness of the risk, the more likely the tribunal is to infer recklessness and knowledge that danger would probably result |
|
|
Margolle v Delta Marine Co ltd
|
limitation
breaking limitation 'such loss' owner ignored channel rules and went below deck leaving inexperienced crew member in charge recklessness? yes such loss? - held that there was a real prospect of establishing at trial that the master knew there was a probability of collision suggestion that knowledge of A collision would suffice, don't need to foresee a particular collision |
|
|
The Bramley Moore (1964)
|
Limitation
the flotilla issue rejects flotilla principle that limitation figure should be decided on an aggregate of the vessels in evolved in the flotilla |
|
|
The Rajah 1872
|
Limitation
one distinct occasion tug standing by preparing to take nearby steamer in tow - ship collided with tow and immediately afterwards the tug this was one occasion - incidents took place 'substantially at the same time and on the same occasion and the whole damage appears to have been caused by one act of improper navigation |
|
|
The Harlow 1922
|
Limitation
one distinct occasion tug collided with vessel because of the tug's negligent navigation - collision jammed tug's steering gear resulting in collision with another vessel ONE OCCASION |
|
|
The Schwan (1892)
|
Limitation
one distinct occasion was there time and opportunity, by use of ordinary care and skill to correct the original matter if yes - 2 occasions |
|
|
The Western Regent
|
Limitation
jurisdictions claimants filed a complaint in Texas claiming damages defendants applied of limitation decree in England with limitation determined in accordance with the 1976 Convention this was allowed BUT liability proceedings will remain in Texas |
|
|
Adler v Dickson (The Himalaya) 1955
|
Collisions
vicarious liability personal injury claim by passenger - contract of carriage had exclusion clause protecting the shipping company but held entitled to sue master and crew member personally in tort |
|
|
Simpson v Thomson 1877
|
COllisions
vicarious liability shipowner remains vicariously liable for injury/loss qua employer of master of crew whose negligence causes loss |
|
|
Baumwoll v Furness (1893)
|
Collisions
vicarious liability chartered vessel - owners remain employers unless demise charter |
|
|
The Devonshire
|
Collisions
vicarious liability tug and tow tow owner is not vicariously liable for tug's negligence - independent contractors NB - can't assume tow is responsible |
|
|
Morgan v Sim (The City of London) 1857
|
Collisions
claimant must prove its case on balance of probabilities if at end leaves the case in even scales/ does not satisfy court of negligence/default of other party - he cannot succeed |
|
|
The Verginia Dollar 1926
|
COllisions
proving negligence not every collision results from negligence vessel properly moored but bollard broke - failure of bollard not foreseeable no negligence |
|
|
The Merchant Prince (1892)
|
COllisions
proving negligence - not every collision results from negligence 'inevitable accident' - no negligence where the collision cannot be avoided by the exercise of ordinary care and caution and maritime skill |
|
|
The Crown v Hessa 1922
|
Collisions
proving negligence 'inevitable accident' perhaps the wrong phrase to use |
|
|
The Bywell Castle (1879)
|
COllisions
proving negligence not every unwise act is negligent 'agony of the moment' - acted quickly and got it wrong - not negligent BUT last min decision is not automatically non-negligent |
|
|
The Winona 1944
|
Collisions
proving negligence not every unwise act is negligent BUT where vessel responsible for emergency arising in the first place - agony of moment claim was rejected |
|
|
The Estrella 1977
|
COllisions
negligence - causal link required vessel in wrong lane collision occurred when still in wrong lane but courts disregarded this entirely because it was in the wrong lane for quite a while the other vessel could see it from a long way off there was no reason why the wrong positioning should have led to a collision |
|
|
The Vysotsk 1981
|
Collisions
causation - reach of causative negligence first collision led to second with no intervening act fault for the first carried through to the second |
|
|
Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government (1952)
|
Collisions
causation SUCCESSIVE LOSSES facts collision causing damage subsequent storm damage necessitated dry docking for repairs collision damage repaired while vessel undergoing these repairs - no recovery for loss of hire by reason of collision damage - no time when vessel was not on hire because of the collision |
|
|
Ruabon Steamship Co ltd v London Assurance
|
Collisions
causation CONCURRENT OTHER WORK the facts vessel goes into dock for repair following collision owner brings forward ship survey - should an allowance be made for the time the vessel was not being repaired but also being surveyed HL - have to focus on the period of time vessel being repaired - without the collision would the vessel have been available to earn money during that period - claimant can only claim damages to extent that it would have been available but for the collision |
|
|
The Hassel (1962)
|
COllisions
causation CONCURRENT OTHER WORK facts vessel in collision - out of action whilst repaired ship due a survey so this was carried out during the time when in dock repairs vessel would not have been available during survey period to earn money --> reduction in damages for loss of earnings |
|
|
The Fritz Thyssen 1976
|
Collisions
causation novus actus intervenus act of someone else intervenes - can displace the defendants as the legally relevant cause |
|
|
R v Goodwin 2005
|
Collisions
apportionment of loss ship? was a jet ski a ship for the purposes of MSA NO - not used in navigation |
|
|
The Norwhale 1975
|
Collisions
apportionment of loss - fault section 187(1) applies whether the causative fault relates to management or navigation of the ship - any actionable fault will do - does not have to be navigational |
|
|
The Miraflores and the Abedesa (1967)
|
Collisions
apportionment of loss 'each ship' must assess independently - can't group tow and tug together etc in this case - judge tried to assess 2 vessels together - this is not permitted legally and led the judge astray about proportions |
|
|
The Calliope (1970)
|
Collisions
apportionment of loss where a collision causes further consequential damage, it is open to the Court to make a second apportionment in respect thereof |
|
|
The Khedive (No2)
|
Collisions
apportionment of loss first established the single liability approach |
|
|
The Anneliese 1970
|
Collisions
apportionment of loss the default rule is not an excuse for a lazy tribunal |
|
|
The Ellen M 1967
|
Collisions
apportionment of loss can't apply 187(1) where one party isn't a ship negligent ship and bridge operator led to a collision between the 2 ordinary common law applies Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 same answer - 2 different routes |
|
|
The Devonshire
|
Collisions
apportionment of loss innocent party may recover in full against any one tortfeasor and there is no admiralty rule to the contrary |
|
|
The Giacinto Motta 1977
|
collisions
apportionment of loss rights of cargo collision leading to damage to cargo - cargo sued non-carrying vessel in US court and recovered 100% can't use 187(1) to circumvent HV - 187(5) states that cannot bring into apportionment any liability sums if that would impose liability removed by a defence |
|
|
Owners of the MV Siboeva v Owners of the MV Vitastar
|
Collisions
negligence claimants – owners of Siboeva defendants – owners of Vivistar collision – traffic separation zone in operation – Vivistar at fault as allowed self to cross the separation zone and enter the southbound lane – Siboeva – at fault for excessive speed and a failure to keep further starboard in her lane → blame apportioned one quarter to three quarters in favour of Siboeva |
|
|
The Topaz and Irapua
|
collision between Topaz and Irapua
Crossing case: Topaz – stand-on vessel Irapua – give-way vessel → Rules 15-17 of the Collision Regulations 1972 were accordingly applicable Irapua – failed to comply with the regulations in failing to keep a proper look out and were in breach of number of other rules HOWEVER argued that Topaz was in breach of r17(a)(ii) – provided that stand-on vessel might take action to avoid collision by her manouvre alone, as soon as it became apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out the way was not taking appropriate action in complance with the rules - if Topaz had altered course it was inadequate – in breach of r17(b) HELD - Topaz could have taken better preventative action in accordance with the regulations – faults not so minor that they should attract only a de minimus share of the blame → 80/20 in favour of Topaz |
|
|
The Torrey Canyon 1967
|
Salvage
major pollution incident when ship went aground law at time couldn't cope with this sort of incident PM asked RAF to bomb the boat - salvors realise that they could expend time and money etc on a salvage mission only for their efforts and potential reward to be blown up this led to a real need to encourage salvage |
|
|
The Nagasaki Spirit 1992
|
salvage
2 vessels attacked by pirates, they put one vessel on autopilot, the 2 vessels collide - massive explosion - salvors get involved, used LOF - worked hard but recovered little - HL judgement did not favour salvors - LOF wasn't enough in the eyes of the salvors --> SCOPIC |
|
|
The Beaverford v The Kafiristan 1938
|
salvage
whether entitled to salvage remuneration LOF contract - if signed gives rise to contractual estoppel - can't sign a LOF contract and then deny salvage services |
|
|
The Hamtun and St John (1999)
|
salvage
concept of danger must be danger/apprehension of danger whereby no reasonable person would refuse help in exchange for remuneration should it be offered |
|
|
The Mount Cynthos (1937)
|
salvage
concept of danger danger doesn't have to be imminent - reasonable apprehension that, but for the assistance, the vessel would be subjected to peril will suffice |
|
|
The Whippingham
|
Salvage
can danger be danger to bank balance? for example, vessel itself not in danger but vessel could potentially cause liability, aka bumping into ships etc - stated obiter in this case that such 'danger' will be admissible |
|
|
Clan Steam Trawling Co ltd v Aberdeen Steam Trawling + Fishing Co ltd - 1908
|
salvage
2 vessels insured by the same mutual insurance company rules required that any insured vessel must assist any other vessel insured by that company or 2 other companies one vessel in distress, other rendered assistance not entitled to salvage award - service was performed under existing contractual obligation |
|
|
The Sava Star
|
Salvage
pre-exisitng duties master and crew can be remunerated for salvage providing the services they render exceed their contractual obligations under employment |
|
|
The Leon Blum 1915
|
salvage
pre-existing contractual duties tug and tow - consequence of classification changing to salvage on towage contract is suspension thereof for the duration of the salvage |
|
|
The Choko Star (No 2) 1990
|
salvage
authority and contract formation master has no implied actual authority to bind cargo etc but OK if it is necessary BUT this authority no longer needed - ICS 1989 art 6(2) - gives master the authority without need of necessity |
|
|
The Tojomaru
|
Salvage
salvor duty - standard of liability is negligence |
|
|
The Alenquer and The Rene (1955)
|
Salvage
salvor fault - negligence engine failure left Rene in real danger of drifting on to the Rocks - requested tow from Alequer an unsuccessful attempt by Alenquer to render the assistance led to a collision between the vessels - significant damage to Rene Alenquer was held negligent |
|
|
The Amoco Cadiz (1984)
|
Salvage
salvor fault - negligence salvors were sued by the french authorities, the shipowners and the cargo owners alleging negligence in unsuccessfully attempting to prevent tanker from grounding HELD - not liable - a fully laden tanker the size of this had never been previously towed the towing strategy adopted by the tug master, although unsuccessful, was not to be legally condemned |
|
|
The Minnehaha 1861
The Robert Dixon 1879 |
Salvage
salvor fault causing need for salvage traditional approach is that salvor cannot claim reward |
|
|
The Beaverford v The Kafiristan (1938)
|
salvage
salvor fault causing need for salvage partial inroad on the traditional approach vessel A caused emergency for vessel B Vessel C rendered salvage services to B it is no bar to C's claim for salvage award that vessel A and C are owned by the same person salvage award allowed |
|
|
The Tojo Maru 1972
|
salvage
consequences of salvor breach of duty or initial fault salvor's potential prejudice is NOT confined to forfeiture of award - if negligence claim exceeds salvage award - salvor will be liable to pay difference |
|
|
The Atlas
|
salvage
consequences of salvor breach breach of duty or initial wilful misconduct -forfeit whole award |
|
|
The Troilus (1951)
|
salvage
termination of salvage salvor successfully got vessel to place of safety but this was not a place where sorting issue could take place further towage to suitable place - was this paid under salvage or normal towage? salvage - salvage lasts so long as the master acts reasonably for the combined benefits of the ship and cargo |
|
|
The Ocean Crown
|
Salvage - art13 award
principles underpinning encouragement NB - not encouragement by way of providing financial cushion against difficult economic times |
|
|
The Queen Elizabeth
|
salvage
art 13 award particularly high salved fund should be reflected in award |
|
|
The Amerique 1874
|
salvage
art13 award - value of salved property shouldn't go overboard with reward even where very highly successful say 130 million saved - only cost the salvor 30,000 - in this case he got 950,000 moderating principle of proportionality |
|
|
Dover Harbour Board v Owners of the Star Maria
|
salvage
art13 award - damage to environment - has to be a genuine threat of damage as defined in art1 facts - there were pollutants on board but the chance of pollutants getting out and doing damage was very low indeed |
|
|
The William Beckford 1801
|
salvage
art13 - degree of skill/danger what enhances award most is the actual danger that they have incurred |
|
|
The Glengyle (1898)
|
salvage
art13 - degree of skill/danger salvage mission carried real possibility of loss of the 2 salvage tugs and the deaths of their crews station keeping vessels --> this enhanced the award too |
|
|
The Star Maria
|
Salvage
art13 - professional salvors more handsomely rewarded |
|
|
Owners of the Vessel Voutakos v Tsavliris Salvage Ltd 2008
|
Salvage
art13 - significance of commercial rates commercial rates were admissible and relevant but only in a very limited capacity - indicated the minimum that a salvor should receive |
|
|
The Nagasaki Spirit 1995
art14 |
salvage
art14 if art14 is applicable at start of operation then it operates for whole operation 'fair rate' - HL - does not include a profit element further complication in deciding what a fair rate is in practice salvors not happy relevant factors when deciding on uplift?? avoidance of major environmental disaster dealing with a particularly dangerous substance high risk to salvor's personnel/vessels length of operation skills or qualifications required lack of cooperation by those requiring help |
|
|
Reino de Espana v American Bureau of shipping 2008
|
CLC
channelling In US - classification societies are immune |
|
|
The Erika
|
CLC
channelling In French courts - channelling societies not immune - do not fall under 4(b) because the services are for the states to fulfil their obligations as contracting states rather than services for the ship - despite the fact the shipowners pay for them |
|
|
Black v Braer Corp 1999
|
oil pollution
psychological damage is an admissible claim - farmer |
|
|
Landcatch
|
oil pollution
recoverable losses - pure economic loss - approach of courts claimants fishing disrupted by an oil spill many clients in Zetland who were established customers of the claimants declined to enter into contracts with them on construction of the Merchant Shipping (oil pollution) Act it was held that these losses were not recoverable the claimants activity that was affected (and led to loss) was not in the area of the pollution damage also law excludes claims based on loss of opportunity to enter into contracts |
|
|
Algrete Shipping Co
|
oil pollution
recoverable losses - pure economic loss - approach of courts welks - supply damaged by pollution had to change source - these weren't as good business in south korea disappeared not recoverable the loss did not occur in the area of pollution damage |
|
|
The Erika
re preventative measures |
must be real danger of oil escaping in future where ship sinks
|
|
|
Simonds v White 1824
|
General Average
ancient principle of General average all those whose property has been saved by the sacrifices of property of another shall contribute to make good his loss |
|
|
The Makis
|
General Average
Peril navigation going wrong on vessel, no imminent peril but if left then would have been in peril in future this WAS enough |
|
|
Daniolos v Bunge + co
|
General Average
Peril vessel went aground in muddy field, no danger to ship or cargo, merely stuck acts in trying to get vessel afloat were held not admissible under GA not sure if this case is correct |
|
|
The Alpha
|
General Average
sacrafice or expenditure must be reasonable this case lead to rule paramount vessel stuck on muddy bank, master overworked boilers - entirely wrong thing to do - master negligent BUT Rule 7 which covered this type of damage did not mention reasonableness (like rule A did) so, as numbered rules take precedence over lettered, these losses were admissible under GA this was not intended --> rule paramount |
|
|
The Trade Green
|
General Average
losses allowable - port of refuge costs fire broke out on board whilst unloading at port of destination port authorities ordered the vessel to move away from berth whilst putting out fire as did not want fire to spread some cargo still left on board fire efficiently put out and the boat drove back into berth towage costs - were these admissible under GA - aka was the cargo that was still on board liable to pay towards these costs no suggestion that the moving of the vessel was necessary for fire fighting its purpose was to fulfil orders by port authority therefore these actions were not for the common safety insufficient that incurred for completion of adventure |
|
|
Chellew v Royal COmmission on Sugar Supply
|
General Average
contributory values if cargo never unloaded as destroyed by peril number 2 then will never have a contributory value |
|
|
Fletcher v Alexander
|
General average
need for success |
|
|
The Carron Park
|
General average
fault must be actionable to give rise to a defence contractual exclusion covering the negligence of servants - engineer negligently left valve open - damage to cargo - shipowner's contribution action was not barred because fault not actionable |
|
|
Whitecross Wire + Iron v Savill
|
General average
time and place of termination fire on board ship before all cargo unloaded cargo had to contribute under GA for losses as the CMA had not ended |
|
|
Republic of India v India Steamship Co
|
General Average
claim that cargo so damaged that nil contributory value this is so UNLESS the cargo is entitled to GA contribution in which case retains a contributory value to the extent made good |
