2,051
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
'''MARINE CARGO INSURANCE: VESSEL, CREW AND CARGO TAKEN BY PIRATES, LATER RELEASED ON PAYMENT OF RANSOM: NOTICE OF ABANDONMENT: CLAIM THAT ASSURED IRRETRIEVABLY DEPRIVED OF CARGO: WHETHER CARGO AN ACTUAL TOTAL LOSS UNDER s.57(1) MARINE INSURANCE ACT 1906: WHETHER PAYMENT OF RANSOM CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY'''
'''Note: leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been refused. Editor, 21 July 2011'''
'''Summary'''
The proliferation of piracy in the Gulf of Aden and around the Indian Ocean has caused the shipping and insurance industry to consider issues which have not arisen for many years - the last piracy case to be heard in the English Courts being in 1590 (Hicks -v- Palington (1590)).
In the case of Masefield, the Court of Appeal, upholding the judgment at first instance[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Masefield_v_Amlin]], decided that the hijacking by Somali pirates of a vessel, its crew and its cargo for ransom did not result in the cargo becoming an actual total loss in terms of s.57 (1) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906. The Court further confirmed that the payment of a ransom to the pirates was not contrary to public policy
This note is based on a note of the case prepared by Christopher Dunn and Matthew Wilmshurst of the London firm of solicitors, Waltons & Morse LLP [http://www.waltonsandmorse.com] who acted for the respondent insurers. The note first appeared on the firm’s website on 26 January 2011
