Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

BROAD INTERPRETATION OF ‘SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATION’ APPLIES YORK-ANTWERP RULES 2016 GOVERNING GENERAL AVERAGE IN STAR AXE I LLC V ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE

Summary and Facts
The case Star Axe I LLC v Royal and Sun Alliance Luxembourg SA [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 342 revolves around a dispute concerning general average adjustments under a series of Congenbill 1994 bills of lading. Star Axe I LLC, the carrier, issued seven bills of lading for cargo on the vessel M/V Star Antares. After an incident on 3.11.2021, in which the vessel struck a submerged object, general average was declared. The cargo insurers, Royal and Sun Alliance Luxembourg SA, issued average guarantees but contested whether the applicable York-Antwerp Rules (YAR) governing the general average should be the 1994 or 2016 version.

The bills of lading contained a clause specifying that general average was to be adjusted according to the York-Antwerp Rules 1994 or any subsequent modification thereof. The main issue before the court was whether the term “subsequent modification” included the YAR 2016 or whether only the YAR 1994 applied.

What is General Average?

  • General average is a principle in maritime law that requires all parties involved in a sea voyage (shipowners, cargo owners, and insurers) to proportionally share the costs of any sacrifice or expenditure deliberately made for the safety of the vessel and its cargo. For example, if cargo is jettisoned or expenses are incurred to save a vessel during an emergency, the cost of these actions is shared by all parties with an interest in the voyage, rather than falling solely on the party that suffered the loss.
  • The York-Antwerp Rules (YAR) govern how general average is calculated and distributed, providing internationally accepted guidelines on which expenses and losses qualify as general average. Over time, these rules have been updated, with the YAR 1994, YAR 2004, and YAR 2016 being some of the most commonly referenced versions.

Key Issue
The key legal question was whether the phrase “any subsequent modification” in the bills of lading included the YAR 2016, or whether this referred only to modifications strictly amending the YAR 1994.

Court’s Findings

  • The court ruled in favour of the defendants, determining that the YAR 2016 were applicable.
  • The court found that the words “any subsequent modification” reasonably encompassed new versions of the York-Antwerp Rules, including YAR 2016. A reasonable person in the shipping industry would interpret “modification” broadly, not limiting it to narrow textual amendments of YAR 1994 but including newer sets of rules promulgated to reflect modern shipping practices.
  • The claimant’s argument, based on trade materials and commentaries suggesting that YAR 2004 and YAR 2016 were entirely new sets of rules rather than modifications, was rejected. The court held that these materials did not amount to an established market understanding that could override the plain meaning of the words.

How the YAR 2016 Impacted the Case

  • The application of the YAR 2016 had a significant impact on the case due to changes in how general average adjustments are calculated under these rules. Compared to the YAR 1994, the YAR 2016 introduced modernized provisions, including:
    1. The YAR 2016 provides more clarity on how salvage is treated, particularly in the context of situations where multiple parties are involved. This affects how salvage costs are shared and the speed of general average settlements.
    2. The YAR 2016 also made amendments regarding the treatment of costs for handling cargo at ports of refuge, clarifying when such costs are considered general average. These rules can lead to a broader range of expenses qualifying for general average contributions, which can be significant for both the carrier and cargo interests.
    3. Under YAR 2016, allowances for certain port-related expenses are reduced, affecting how much the carrier could claim from the cargo interests for expenses incurred during the incident.

Had the YAR 1994 been applied, the carrier may have been entitled to claim a broader range of port-related expenses and possibly salvage claims. The court’s decision to apply YAR 2016 thus potentially reduced the overall liability of the cargo insurers, affecting the general average contributions they were required to make.

Practical Implications

  • This ruling emphasizes that phrases like “any subsequent modification” in shipping contracts may be interpreted broadly to include entirely new versions of rules or regulations, not just minor amendments.
  • Parties involved in shipping contracts should be aware that adopting wording like “any subsequent modification” in relation to York-Antwerp Rules can lead to the incorporation of the most recent version of the rules, which may differ significantly from earlier ones, as in this case with the YAR 2016.
  • This case highlights the importance of clear contract drafting. If parties intend to restrict general average adjustments to a specific version of the YAR, they should explicitly state so, rather than relying on ambiguous wording like “subsequent modification.”

Conclusion
The court ruled that the YAR 2016 applied to the general average adjustments in this case, emphasizing that terms like “subsequent modification” should be interpreted broadly unless there is clear evidence to suggest a narrower meaning. The application of the YAR 2016 impacted the calculation of general average contributions, potentially reducing the liability of the cargo insurers. This decision provides clarity for the shipping industry regarding the application of the York-Antwerp Rules in general average disputes.

Sorotan Terkini

REGULATIONS – GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT 1947 ) – ARTICLE I

This legal update explores key provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947), focusing on Article I (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment), Article II (Schedules of Concessions), Article XX (General Exceptions), and Article XXI (Security Exceptions). Article I mandates that any trade advantage granted by one contracting party to another must be extended unconditionally to all other parties. Article II ensures that imported goods from contracting parties receive treatment no less favourable than that outlined in agreed schedules, while also regulating permissible taxes and charges. Articles XX and XXI provide exceptions for measures necessary to protect public morals, health, security interests, and compliance with domestic laws. The provisions reflect the foundational principles of non-discrimination, transparency, and fair trade, while allowing for limited, well-defined exceptions. This summary is intended to provide a concise reference for businesses and legal practitioners involved in international trade law.

Read More »

ROAD ACCIDENT – INSURANCE COMPANY STRIKES BACK: HIGH COURT OVERTURNS ROAD ACCIDENT CLAIM

When a motorcyclist claimed he was knocked down in an accident, the Sessions Court ruled in his favor, holding the other rider fully liable. But the insurance company wasn’t convinced. They appealed, arguing that there was no proof of a collision and even raised suspicions of fraud. The High Court took a closer look – and in a dramatic turn, overturned the decision, dismissed the claim, and awarded RM60,000 in costs to the insurer. This case is a stark reminder that in court, assumptions don’t win cases – evidence does.

Read More »

CHARTERPARTY – LIEN ON SUB-FREIGHTS: CLARIFYING OWNERS’ RIGHTS AGAINST SUB-CHARTERERS

In Marchand Navigation Co v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92, the Singapore High Court upheld the owners’ right to enforce a lien on sub-freights under Clause 18 of the NYPE 1946 charterparty, ruling that the phrase ‘any amounts due under this charter’ was broad enough to cover unpaid bunker costs. Despite an arbitration clause between the owners and charterers, the sub-charterer was obligated to honor the lien, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement. This decision reinforces that a properly exercised lien on sub-freights can be an effective tool for owners to recover unpaid sums, even in the presence of disputes between charterers and sub-charterers.

Read More »

SHIP SALE – LOSING THE DEAL, LOSING THE DAMAGES? THE LILA LISBON CASE AND THE LIMITS OF MARKET LOSS RECOVERY

In “The Lila Lisbon” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 101, the court ruled that a buyer cancelling under Clause 14 of the Norwegian Salesform Memorandum of Agreement is not automatically entitled to loss of bargain damages unless the seller is in repudiatory breach. The case clarifies that failing to deliver by the cancellation date does not constitute non-delivery under the English Sale of Goods Act 1979, as the clause grants the buyer a discretionary right rather than imposing a firm obligation on the seller. This decision highlights the importance of precise contract drafting, particularly in ship sale agreements, where buyers must ensure that compensation for market loss is explicitly provided for.

Read More »

CRIMINAL – KIDNAPPING – NO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE: COURT UPHOLDS LIFE SENTENCE IN HIGH-PROFILE KIDNAPPING CASE

A 10-year-old child was abducted outside a tuition center, held captive, and released only after a RM1.75 million ransom was paid. The appellants were arrested following investigations, with their statements leading to the recovery of a portion of the ransom money. Despite denying involvement, they were convicted under the Kidnapping Act 1961 and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten strokes of the whip. Their appeal challenged the identification process, the validity of the charge, and the admissibility of evidence, but the court found the prosecution’s case to be strong, ruling that the appellants had acted in furtherance of a common intention and were equally liable for the crime.

Read More »
ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami