2,051
edits
Changes
From DMC
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 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 potentialfor 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.
