Tag: Maritime Law

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

ADMIRALTY – SINGAPORE HIGH COURT CLARIFIES RIGHTS OF SUIT UNDER BILLS OF LADING ACT AND WRONGFUL ARREST THRESHOLD IN THE JEIL CRYSTAL

In Owners of the Cargo Lately Laden on Board “Jeil Crystal” v Owners of the Vessel “Jeil Crystal” [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 299, the Singapore High Court clarified the operation of the Bills of Lading Act 1992 and the threshold for wrongful arrest. The Court held that Banque Cantonale de Genève (BCGE) ceased to be the lawful holder of the bills of lading once it endorsed and delivered them to its customer, GP Global. Having divested itself of all rights, BCGE had no standing to sue for wrongful switch bills or misdelivery when it arrested the vessel months later. The arrest was found wrongful, as BCGE acted with gross negligence by failing to verify that it possessed the original bills before seeking arrest. This decision reinforces the strict requirement of poss…

ADMIRALTY – LIMITATION OF LIABILITY – REPAIRS VS CARGO REMOVAL: SUPREME COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON LIMITATION1976, ARTICLE 2

In MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Conti 11 Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co KG (The “MSC Flaminia”) [2025] 2 Lloyd’s 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’s restrictive “owner’s original loss” 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.

SHIPPING – ADMIRALTY IN REM – ANCHORED BUT NOT ADRIFT: REDEFINING “SHIP” IN ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION

The Singapore High Court in Vallianz Shipbuilding & Engineering v Owner of the Vessel ‘Eco Spark’ [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 195 clarified the definition of a ‘ship’ under admiralty jurisdiction. Despite conversion into a stationary floating fish farm, the vessel retained its status as a ship due to its inherent navigational capability, significantly broadening the scope of admiralty law.

NAVIGATING LIABILITY: THE UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE FJORD WIND AND ITS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

The Court of Appeal ruled in The Fjord Wind case that the vessel was unseaworthy at the time of departure from Rosario on 30.06.1990, due to known issues with the crankpin bearings that had not been adequately addressed. This unseaworthiness led to a main engine failure shortly after departure, necessitating the transhipment of cargo and incurring additional costs.

The court found the shipowners liable for damages, emphasizing their failure to exercise due diligence in maintaining the vessel’s seaworthiness. The ruling underscores the critical importance of thorough inspections and repairs in maritime operations, highlighting the legal responsibilities of shipowners to prevent unseaworthiness and related liabilities.