2,051
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
DMC/SandT/22/12
'''England'''
Pacific Pearl Co Ltd v Osios David Shipping Ltd (The “Panamax Alexander” and “Osios David”)
'''English Court of Appeal: Lewison, Males and Snowden LLJ: [2022] EWCA Civ 798: 14 June 2022'''
Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2022/798.html
James Turner QC (instructed by Reed Smith LLP) for Osios David Shipping, Owners of “Osios David”
'''COLLISION BETWEEN SHIPS: SECURITY AND JURISDICTION: STANDARD FORM WORDINGS OF ADMIRALTY SOLICITORS’ GROUP: ASG 1 – LETTER OF UNDERTAKING (“LOU”): ASG 2 – COLLISION JURISDICTION AGREEMENT: FORMS DESIGNED TO BE USED TOGETHER: PER ASG 2, SECURITY TO BE PROVIDED “IN A REASONABLY SATISFACTORY FORM TO THE OTHER [PARTY]”: WHETHER ADDITION OF INTERNATIONAL GROUP OF P&I CLUBS’ APPROVED SANCTIONS CLAUSE TO ASG 1 LOU WORDING RENDERED IT UNSATISFACTORY: WHETHER A PARTY IS OBLIGED TO ACCEPT REASONABLY SATISFACTORY SECURITY'''
'''Summary'''
In reversing in part the decision of the High Court in this case, the Court of Appeal held that:
Case note contributed by Jim Leighton, LLM (Maritime Law), LLB (Hons), BSc (Hons), Solicitor Advocate of England & Wales, IMI Qualified Mediator, LMAA Supporting Member and International Contributor to DMC’s Case Notes
'''Background''''
As a result of a collision between three vessels (“Panamax Alexander”, “Osios David” and “Sakizaya Kalon”) in the Suez Canal, the owners of the vessels, via their IG P&I Clubs, entered into ASG 2 form Collision Jurisdiction Agreements, for the purpose of English law and jurisdiction applying to the resolution of the possible disputes that would arise between the parties regarding the apportionment of liability for, and the quantum of damages due to each party resulting from, the collision. Clause C of the ASG 2 form provided “Each party will provide security in respect of the other’s claim in a form reasonably satisfactory to the other.” The ASG 1 form LOU wording of security was what was contemplated to be provided by the other party’s P&I Club.
Accordingly, Owners of “Panamax Alexander” appealed to the Court of Appeal on point (2), whilst Owners of “Osios David” appealed on point (1). In particular, Owners of “Osios David” submitted that the sanctions clause should have provided for Britannia to exercise “best endeavours”, instead of “reasonable endeavours”, to obtain permission to make payment under the LOU in circumstances where payment would otherwise be unlawful due to sanctions, and that the High Court judge placed too much weight in Britannia being an IG P&I Club.
The fuller facts of and background to the case can be founding in the case note of the High Court judgment, [[here.]]
Judgment
