{"id":5945,"date":"2025-11-16T07:56:23","date_gmt":"2025-11-15T23:56:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/?p=5945"},"modified":"2025-11-16T07:56:26","modified_gmt":"2025-11-15T23:56:26","slug":"admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\/","title":{"rendered":"ADMIRALTY \u2013 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY \u2013 REPAIRS VS CARGO REMOVAL: SUPREME COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON LIMITATION1976, ARTICLE 2"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>1. Summary and Facts<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>MSC Mediterranean Shipping CO SA v Conti 11 Container Schiffahrts-GMBH &amp; CO KG MS (The \u201cMSC Flaminia\u201d) [2025] 2 Lloyd&#8217;s Rep 150 concerns the dispute followed the MSC Flaminia vessel\u2019s explosion in July 2012, which caused severe damage to the vessel and cargo. The shipowner, Conti, recovered around US$200 million in arbitration against the charterer, MSC, for breach of charter. MSC then sought to limit its liability under the 1976 Limitation Convention by establishing a limitation fund. In 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed MSC\u2019s appeal, holding that article 2 of the Convention does not extend to claims brought by a shipowner against a charterer for the owner\u2019s own losses. MSC appealed to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>2. Legal Issues<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>\u2022 Whether there is a further and wider principle that there is no right for a charterer to limit its liability in respect of claims by a shipowner for losses originally suffered by it.<br>\u2022 Whether the claims made by the shipowner fall within Article 2.1 of the 1976 Convention and, if so, whether the fact that they result from damage to the vessel means that there is no right to limit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>3. Court\u2019s Findings<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>\u2022 The court ruled in favor of the MSC Mediterranean charterer.<br>\u2022 Issue 1: A charterer can limit its liability for claims by an owner, including in respect of losses originally suffered by the owner itself under the 1976 Convention. \u201cClaims\u201d in Article 2 of the LLMC 1976 covers all those listed, regardless of whether made by owners, charterers, or third parties.<br>\u2022 Issue 2: MSC is only entitled to limitation rights under Article 2.1(e) of the Convention in respect of the costs of discharging and decontaminating cargo, while the remaining claims were regarded as vessel repair costs and therefore not subject to limitation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>4. Practical Implications<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>This judgment has clarified the blur lines between the limitation right available to the charterers under the 1976 Convention:<br>\u2022 Charterers are deemed as an insider just like owner, they may invoke limitation rights under the Convention, even when facing claims directly from shipowners.<br>\u2022 Under the English law, neither the 1976 Convention as a whole nor Article 2 specifically is to be interpreted broadly or liberally, and the Vienna Convention provides no basis for such an expansive construction.<br>\u2022 Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention safeguard the limitation fund for third-party claimants, ensuring that owner\u2013charterer disputes cannot deplete it at the expense of outsiders.<br>The ruling shows the need for careful distinction between cargo-related and vessel-related claims, as this will determine whether limitation applies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Conti 11 Container Schiffahrts-GmbH &#038; Co KG (The \u201cMSC Flaminia\u201d) [2025] 2 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 150, the UK Supreme Court clarified the scope of the 1976 Limitation Convention. The Court held that charterers may limit liability for claims brought directly by owners, rejecting the Court of Appeal\u2019s restrictive \u201cowner\u2019s original loss\u201d rule. However, it reaffirmed that claims for loss of or damage to the vessel itself and consequential losses remain non-limitable. Importantly, the Court drew a distinction between repair costs (not limitable) and cargo-related costs (potentially limitable): while payments to authorities, removal of fire-fighting water, and waste disposal were treated as repair costs, the discharging and decontamination of cargo fell within Article 2.1(e) as limitable claims. The ruling underscores the need for careful characterisation of claims when invoking limitation rights.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5946,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3703],"tags":[1596,3700,3701,3584,3702],"class_list":["post-5945","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-maritime-shipping-law","tag-demurrage-detention-charges","tag-charterparty","tag-limitation-of-liability","tag-maritime-law","tag-uk-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>ADMIRALTY \u2013 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY \u2013 REPAIRS VS CARGO REMOVAL: SUPREME COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON LIMITATION1976, ARTICLE 2 | Yew Huoi, How &amp; Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Conti 11 Container Schiffahrts-GmbH &amp; Co KG (The \u201cMSC Flaminia\u201d) [2025] 2 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 150, the UK Supreme Court clarified the scope of the 1976 Limitation Convention. The Court held that charterers may limit liability for claims brought directly by owners, rejecting the Court of Appeal\u2019s restrictive \u201cowner\u2019s original loss\u201d rule. However, it reaffirmed that claims for loss of or damage to the vessel itself and consequential losses remain non-limitable. Importantly, the Court drew a distinction between repair costs (not limitable) and cargo-related costs (potentially limitable): while payments to authorities, removal of fire-fighting water, and waste disposal were treated as repair costs, the discharging and decontamination of cargo fell within Article 2.1(e) as limitable claims. The ruling underscores the need for careful characterisation of claims when invoking limitation rights.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ms_MY\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"ADMIRALTY \u2013 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY \u2013 REPAIRS VS CARGO REMOVAL: SUPREME COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON LIMITATION1976, ARTICLE 2 | Yew Huoi, How &amp; Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Conti 11 Container Schiffahrts-GmbH &amp; Co KG (The \u201cMSC Flaminia\u201d) [2025] 2 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 150, the UK Supreme Court clarified the scope of the 1976 Limitation Convention. The Court held that charterers may limit liability for claims brought directly by owners, rejecting the Court of Appeal\u2019s restrictive \u201cowner\u2019s original loss\u201d rule. However, it reaffirmed that claims for loss of or damage to the vessel itself and consequential losses remain non-limitable. Importantly, the Court drew a distinction between repair costs (not limitable) and cargo-related costs (potentially limitable): while payments to authorities, removal of fire-fighting water, and waste disposal were treated as repair costs, the discharging and decontamination of cargo fell within Article 2.1(e) as limitable claims. The ruling underscores the need for careful characterisation of claims when invoking limitation rights.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Yew Huoi, How &amp; Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/yhalaw\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-11-15T23:56:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-11-15T23:56:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/repairremove.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"630\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"YHA Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"YHA Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minit\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"YHA Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f778c60834a29c5ec215ab62d3207bef\"},\"headline\":\"ADMIRALTY \u2013 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY \u2013 REPAIRS VS CARGO REMOVAL: SUPREME COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON LIMITATION1976, ARTICLE 2\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-11-15T23:56:23+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-11-15T23:56:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":421,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/repairremove.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Admiralty\",\"Charterparty\",\"Limitation of Liability\",\"Maritime Law\",\"UK Supreme Court\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Maritime &amp; Shipping Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"ms-MY\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\\\/\",\"name\":\"ADMIRALTY \u2013 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY \u2013 REPAIRS VS CARGO REMOVAL: SUPREME COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON LIMITATION1976, ARTICLE 2 | Yew Huoi, How &amp; Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/repairremove.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-11-15T23:56:23+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-11-15T23:56:26+00:00\",\"description\":\"In MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Conti 11 Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co KG (The \u201cMSC Flaminia\u201d) [2025] 2 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 150, the UK Supreme Court clarified the scope of the 1976 Limitation Convention. The Court held that charterers may limit liability for claims brought directly by owners, rejecting the Court of Appeal\u2019s restrictive \u201cowner\u2019s original loss\u201d rule. However, it reaffirmed that claims for loss of or damage to the vessel itself and consequential losses remain non-limitable. Importantly, the Court drew a distinction between repair costs (not limitable) and cargo-related costs (potentially limitable): while payments to authorities, removal of fire-fighting water, and waste disposal were treated as repair costs, the discharging and decontamination of cargo fell within Article 2.1(e) as limitable claims. The ruling underscores the need for careful characterisation of claims when invoking limitation rights.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ms-MY\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ms-MY\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/repairremove.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/repairremove.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":630},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"ADMIRALTY \u2013 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY \u2013 REPAIRS VS CARGO REMOVAL: SUPREME COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON LIMITATION1976, ARTICLE 2\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/\",\"name\":\"Yew Huoi, How &amp; Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm\",\"description\":\"YHA Law Firm is a leading law firm in Malaysia.Specialises in handling Civil,Maritime,Shipping Matters,Company Law,Family Law,Real Estate and many more\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ms-MY\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Yew Huoi, How & Associates Law Firm | yhalaw.com.my\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ms-MY\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/YHA-Law-Logo-White-BG-New@2x-e1668772571446.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/YHA-Law-Logo-White-BG-New@2x-e1668772571446.png\",\"width\":2080,\"height\":369,\"caption\":\"Yew Huoi, How & Associates Law Firm | yhalaw.com.my\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/yhalaw\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f778c60834a29c5ec215ab62d3207bef\",\"name\":\"YHA Admin\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/yhalaw.com.my\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"ADMIRALTY \u2013 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY \u2013 REPAIRS VS CARGO REMOVAL: SUPREME COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON LIMITATION1976, ARTICLE 2 | Yew Huoi, How &amp; Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm","description":"In MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Conti 11 Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co KG (The \u201cMSC Flaminia\u201d) [2025] 2 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 150, the UK Supreme Court clarified the scope of the 1976 Limitation Convention. The Court held that charterers may limit liability for claims brought directly by owners, rejecting the Court of Appeal\u2019s restrictive \u201cowner\u2019s original loss\u201d rule. However, it reaffirmed that claims for loss of or damage to the vessel itself and consequential losses remain non-limitable. Importantly, the Court drew a distinction between repair costs (not limitable) and cargo-related costs (potentially limitable): while payments to authorities, removal of fire-fighting water, and waste disposal were treated as repair costs, the discharging and decontamination of cargo fell within Article 2.1(e) as limitable claims. The ruling underscores the need for careful characterisation of claims when invoking limitation rights.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\/","og_locale":"ms_MY","og_type":"article","og_title":"ADMIRALTY \u2013 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY \u2013 REPAIRS VS CARGO REMOVAL: SUPREME COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON LIMITATION1976, ARTICLE 2 | Yew Huoi, How &amp; Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm","og_description":"In MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Conti 11 Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co KG (The \u201cMSC Flaminia\u201d) [2025] 2 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 150, the UK Supreme Court clarified the scope of the 1976 Limitation Convention. The Court held that charterers may limit liability for claims brought directly by owners, rejecting the Court of Appeal\u2019s restrictive \u201cowner\u2019s original loss\u201d rule. However, it reaffirmed that claims for loss of or damage to the vessel itself and consequential losses remain non-limitable. Importantly, the Court drew a distinction between repair costs (not limitable) and cargo-related costs (potentially limitable): while payments to authorities, removal of fire-fighting water, and waste disposal were treated as repair costs, the discharging and decontamination of cargo fell within Article 2.1(e) as limitable claims. The ruling underscores the need for careful characterisation of claims when invoking limitation rights.","og_url":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\/","og_site_name":"Yew Huoi, How &amp; Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/yhalaw","article_published_time":"2025-11-15T23:56:23+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-11-15T23:56:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":630,"url":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/repairremove.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"YHA Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"YHA Admin","Est. reading time":"3 minit"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\/"},"author":{"name":"YHA Admin","@id":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/#\/schema\/person\/f778c60834a29c5ec215ab62d3207bef"},"headline":"ADMIRALTY \u2013 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY \u2013 REPAIRS VS CARGO REMOVAL: SUPREME COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON LIMITATION1976, ARTICLE 2","datePublished":"2025-11-15T23:56:23+00:00","dateModified":"2025-11-15T23:56:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\/"},"wordCount":421,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/repairremove.jpg","keywords":["Admiralty","Charterparty","Limitation of Liability","Maritime Law","UK Supreme Court"],"articleSection":["Maritime &amp; Shipping Law"],"inLanguage":"ms-MY"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\/","url":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\/","name":"ADMIRALTY \u2013 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY \u2013 REPAIRS VS CARGO REMOVAL: SUPREME COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON LIMITATION1976, ARTICLE 2 | Yew Huoi, How &amp; Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/repairremove.jpg","datePublished":"2025-11-15T23:56:23+00:00","dateModified":"2025-11-15T23:56:26+00:00","description":"In MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Conti 11 Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co KG (The \u201cMSC Flaminia\u201d) [2025] 2 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 150, the UK Supreme Court clarified the scope of the 1976 Limitation Convention. The Court held that charterers may limit liability for claims brought directly by owners, rejecting the Court of Appeal\u2019s restrictive \u201cowner\u2019s original loss\u201d rule. However, it reaffirmed that claims for loss of or damage to the vessel itself and consequential losses remain non-limitable. Importantly, the Court drew a distinction between repair costs (not limitable) and cargo-related costs (potentially limitable): while payments to authorities, removal of fire-fighting water, and waste disposal were treated as repair costs, the discharging and decontamination of cargo fell within Article 2.1(e) as limitable claims. The ruling underscores the need for careful characterisation of claims when invoking limitation rights.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ms-MY","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ms-MY","@id":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/repairremove.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/repairremove.jpg","width":1200,"height":630},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/admiralty-limitation-of-liability-repairs-vs-cargo-removal-supreme-court-draws-the-line-on-limitation1976-article-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"ADMIRALTY \u2013 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY \u2013 REPAIRS VS CARGO REMOVAL: SUPREME COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON LIMITATION1976, ARTICLE 2"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/#website","url":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/","name":"Yew Huoi, How &amp; Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm","description":"YHA Law Firm is a leading law firm in Malaysia.Specialises in handling Civil,Maritime,Shipping Matters,Company Law,Family Law,Real Estate and many more","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ms-MY"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/#organization","name":"Yew Huoi, How & Associates Law Firm | yhalaw.com.my","url":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ms-MY","@id":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/YHA-Law-Logo-White-BG-New@2x-e1668772571446.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/YHA-Law-Logo-White-BG-New@2x-e1668772571446.png","width":2080,"height":369,"caption":"Yew Huoi, How & Associates Law Firm | yhalaw.com.my"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/yhalaw"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/#\/schema\/person\/f778c60834a29c5ec215ab62d3207bef","name":"YHA Admin","sameAs":["https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my"]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5945"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5945"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5945\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5947,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5945\/revisions\/5947"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5946"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5945"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5945"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5945"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}