Changes

From DMC
Jump to: navigation, search
no edit summary
'''CLAIM FOR CONTRIBUTION IN GENERAL AVERAGE: NEGLIGENT VOYAGE PLANNING BY THE VESSEL’S OFFICERS CAUSED GROUNDING OF VESSEL LEADING TO EXPENDITURE IN THE NATURE OF GENERAL AVERAGE TO REFLOAT THE VESSEL: WHETHER CARGO INTERESTS ENTITLED TO DEFEND THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS THAT OWNERS HAD FAILED TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE THE VESSEL SEAWORTHY BEFORE AND AT THE BEGINNING OF THE VOYAGE: ARTICLE III, RULES 1 AND 2 AND ARTICLE IV, RULE 2(A) OF THE HAGUE/HAGUE-VISBY RULES'''
 
'''Note: The decision in this case has been upheld by the UK Supreme Court, in a judgment dated 10 November 2021. A note on that judgment can be found here[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Alize_1954_and_CMA_CGM_SA_v_Allianz_Versicherungs_AG_and_Ors_-_the_CMA_CGM_Libra]]'''
'''Summary'''
The Court of Appeal, in dismissing Owners’ appeal, held that:
(1) Passage planning (which includes making appropriate marks of dangers on charts) is an aspect of seaworthiness that arose before and at the beginning of the voyage [under Article III, rule 1 of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules- see Fn.1], such that;
(2) Where Owners had not discharged their non-delegable obligation to exercise due diligence before and at the beginning of the voyage in relation to passage planning (including marking dangers on charts), as was the case here;
(3) Owners were not entitled to rely on the defence of “error of navigation” [under Article IV, rule 2(a)- see Fn.2], to succeed in their claim for a contribution in general average against Cargo Interests, where the failure to mark dangers on the chart was the operative cause of the grounding after the voyage from Xiamen to Hong Kong had commenced.
Case note contributed by Jim Leighton, LLM (Maritime Law), LLB (Hons), BSc (Hons), Solicitor of England & Wales, LMAA Supporting Member and International Contributor to DMC’s Case Notes
The chances of a repetition may possibly be somewhat less likely in future, as this case concerned a paper-based passage plan, prior to the mandatory use of the far more automated electronic passage planning that is done nowadays on ECDIS (“Electronic Chart & Display Information System”).
However, while ECDIS has many advantages, as with all technological solutions, there is always in practice a very real potential for user error and for defects or limitations in the software or hardware. As such, application of the principles of this judgment in the ECDIS context could be expected in the future.  Fn.1: Article III rule 1 of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules reads: "Article III Responsibilities and Liabilities 1. The carrier shall be bound, before and at the beginning of the voyage, to exercise due diligence to (a) make the ship seaworthy; (b) properly man, equip and supply the ship; (c) make the holds, refrigerating and cool chambers, and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried, fit and safe for their reception, carriage and preservation."  Fn.2: Article IV, rule 2 of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules reads in relevant part as follows: "Article IV Rights and Immunities 2. Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from
Some (a) act, neglect, or default of the potential future problems that could possibly arise would be an incident being caused by inadequate crew training on master, mariner, pilot or the correct use servants of ECDIS or vulnerabilities existing the carrier in the ECDIS system itself due to cyber-attack navigation or failure to keep software, including in the likes management of Notices to Mariners, fully up-to-date.the ship;"

Navigation menu