Source: https://thelawreviews.co.uk/edition/the-shipping-law-review-edition-6/1195050/england-and-wales
Timestamp: 2020-01-21 08:43:05
Document Index: 278580516

Matched Legal Cases: ['UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ']

England & Wales - The Shipping Law Review - Edition 6 - TLR - The Law Reviews
The shipping industry has for centuries played an important role in the United Kingdom's island-nation economy. As at December 2018, the UK Ship Register was ranked 18th on world fleet tonnage volume statistics, with a gross tonnage of 16 million.2 In economic terms, shipping accounts for 95 per cent of exports and imports and is reported to make a total economic contribution of £12.5 billion (direct, indirect and induced impact) each year. The wider maritime sector also contributes approximately £14.5 billion and 186,000 jobs to the UK economy every year.3 According to the most recent statistics, total port freight traffic through the UK's major ports between October 2018 and December 2018 was 470 million tonnes.4
While the United Kingdom remains a member of the European Union, Regulations and Directives made by institutions of the European Union have either a direct or indirect effect in the jurisdiction of England and Wales. A referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union was held in June 2016, in which the majority voted to leave the European Union. Following the triggering of Article 50 in March 2017, the UK may leave the EU in June or October 2019 and, if the United Kingdom leaves the European Union with an exit agreement, there will then be a transition period ending on 31 December 2020. EU Regulations may no longer have effect after 31 December 2020. Unlike EU Directives, which are left to Member States to implement by way of national legislation, Regulations are automatically and directly applicable in Member States. UK legislation dealing with matters covered by Directives could therefore remain substantively unaltered, as the UK laws passed to implement them will remain in place, potentially requiring only minor changes. However, any critical gaps currently covered by Regulations will need to be addressed by new domestic legislation. While the outcome of negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union is impossible to predict, Brexit could potentially affect a number of areas. These could include the return of border controls, the loss of the right for UK entities to perform cabotage services throughout the European Union and the loss of 'passporting' rights for the UK's marine insurance and ship finance sectors.
Several particularly significant shipping disputes have recently come before the English courts, including The Ocean Victory (safe port warranties, restoring the traditionally understood position),7, 8 The Maersk Tangier (a significant Hague-Visby Rules judgment on package limitation for containerised cargoes),9 The Aqasia (judgment on the non-applicability of the package or unit limitation to bulk cargoes under the Hague Rules).10 The Aconagua Bay11 (on the interpretation of the 'always accessible' warranty in voyage charters), The Songa Winds12 (judgment confirming previous decisions on letters of indemnity for delivery of cargo without production of the original bills of lading), The Alhani13 (on the applicability of the Hague Rules time bar to a misdelivery claim) The Yangtze Xing Hua14 and The Maria15 (on construction of the term 'act' and 'a similar amendment' in the context of the inter-club agreement), The Pacific Voyager16 (on owners' obligation to proceed approach voyage with utmost dispatch under a charter with no ETA or ERTL at load port), Volcafe17 (Supreme Court case reversing the Court of Appeal position and clarifying the scope of the burden of proof on carriers seeking to rely on the Hague Rules' inherent vice exemption), The New Flamenco (limiting the scope of what will be regarded as acts of mitigation),18 The Yusuf Cepnioglu (supporting the terms of an insurance policy over the direct rights of action against insurers under foreign legislation),19 The Merwestone (fraudulent devices in insurance claims)20 and Atlantik Confidence (a rare case in which the exceptional facts justified breaking tonnage limitation).21 One of the most notable disputes to pass through the English courts all the way up to the Supreme Court is the primary test arising out of the insolvency of Danish bunker supplier OW Bunkers. The Supreme Court confirmed that a bunker supply contract that contains a retention of title clause in favour of the bunker supplier, and that permits the buyer to use or consume the bunkers before title passes, does not fall within the scope of the English Sale of Goods Act 1979.22
The Recast Brussels I Regulation23 (the Recast Regulation) covers jurisdiction as between courts of different EU Member States and replaces the 2001 Brussels I Regulation (the Brussels I Regulation).24 The Recast Regulation took effect on 10 January 2015 and applies to all proceedings instituted on or after that date. The Recast Regulation contains provisions aimed at preventing parallel proceedings in the courts of different EU Member States. Under the Brussels I Regulation, it had been the case where proceedings involving the same dispute and the same parties were commenced in the courts of different Member States, and the court 'first seised' of a dispute had the ability to determine whether or not it had jurisdiction over it (the 'first-in-time' rule). In principle, this first-in-time rule still applies, unless parties have agreed that the court of a Member State should have jurisdiction over the dispute (usually through a contractual jurisdiction clause). If such an agreement has been made, the court nominated by it will have jurisdiction over the claim regardless of whether it was first seised of the dispute. This provision will apply even if no party to the dispute is domiciled within the European Union. This new provision will help to give more certainty to commercial contracts, but significant concerns remain. First, the Recast Regulation does not clarify what should happen if the jurisdiction clause states that one party must bring its claim in one jurisdiction, but that the other party may bring its claim in a number of jurisdictions. Second, the Recast Regulation is unclear on whether a Member State court is bound to uphold an exclusive jurisdiction agreement that nominates a court outside the EU. Given these issues, the question of where to commence proceedings will continue to require careful thought.
Following the post-Brexit transition period (which will apply if the UK leaves the EU with an exit agreement), the Recast Brussels regime will cease to apply unless the UK government and the European Union agree otherwise. The UK government would also be free to adopt the Lugano Convention or the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005. There will also be a knock-on effect on the service of proceedings as the EU Service Regulations will cease to apply.
three years from the date of the act or omission that caused the death or injury for death or personal injury claims (or, in certain circumstances, from the date of knowledge of a latent injury);25
six years from the date on which the cause of action occurred for ordinary contractual or tortious actions (except personal injury);26 and
12 years for 'upon speciality' claims, for instance, for claims based upon deeds.27
Maritime disputes are often resolved via London arbitration and the vast majority of international shipping arbitrations are currently dealt with in London.28 For a dispute to be subject to arbitration there must be an arbitration agreement, which may be either written in the contract under which the dispute arises or agreed between the parties after the dispute has arisen.
The LMAA is an association of specialist maritime arbitrators operating in London. In 2018, the LMAA received approximately 2,599 new arbitration appointments and published 508 arbitration awards.29
English law continues to be the governing law of choice for parties entering into shipbuilding contracts and so England and Wales remains a key jurisdiction in this respect. See the chapter on 'Shipbuilding' in this publication for further discussion of the law in this area.
Unless notice of loss or damage is given in writing to the carrier or his agent before or at the time of the receiver removing the goods into his custody (or within three days of doing so, if the loss or damage is not immediately apparent), the carrier will be deemed to have complied with their obligations, as per Article III.6. In any event, the time limit under which a claim can be brought under the Hague-Visby Rules is one year from the cargo's date of delivery or the date on which it should have been delivered.
If an owner or disponent owner under a time charter party has not been paid hire by the charterer, the owner may be entitled to exercise a lien requiring the charterers down the charter chain to pay direct to the owner the sub-hire or sub-freight that would ordinarily have been payable to their owners. The Court of Appeal confirmed in the Bulk Chile30 case that owners are able to exercise a lien over freight from the shipper under the bill of lading as well as a lien over the sub-freights due under a charter party in a charter party chain. Salvors may exercise possessory liens over salved property. Possessory liens can also be created by contract or statute.
Pursuant to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992, which is applicable to bills of lading, sea waybills and ships' delivery orders, title to sue is vested in the 'lawful holder' of the bill of lading. The lawful holder is the person who becomes the holder of the bill in good faith, that is, a consignee or endorsee (following a valid endorsement, or chain of endorsements) in possession of the bill. The Court of Appeal recently confirmed that a bank that is the pledgee of goods under a letter of credit can also be classed as a lawful holder of the bill of lading, because it is entirely entitled to those goods.31
Liability in tort – that is, a breach of the duty to take reasonable care not to cause damage or loss (i.e., negligence) – will usually be asserted by any cargo claimant against the shipowner, and may also arise between parties where no contractual relationship exists, for example, between stevedores and cargo owners. The claimant must be able to prove physical loss or damage, and so cannot claim for pure financial losses in the absence of any cargo loss or damage (for example, in the event of cargo delay). Furthermore, only the person who owned the cargo, or was entitled to possession, at the time of the negligent act may claim. Apart from tortious liability, English law also recognises the effectiveness of Himalaya clauses in bills of lading in the context of losses caused by the acts of stevedores (for a deeper analysis of Himalaya clauses, see the Ports and Terminals chapter).
Parties will often attempt to incorporate the terms of the charter party into the bill of lading. This will, however, only be successful if (1) the wording purporting to incorporate the charter-party terms is wide enough, (2) the term of the charter party being incorporated makes sense in the context of the bill of lading, and (3) the incorporated term is consistent with the terms of the bill of lading itself.32 It is important when trying to incorporate charter-party terms into a bill of lading to refer to the exact charter party in question, as the charter may not otherwise be effectively incorporated. There is a presumption that in circumstances in which the parties failed to specify which charter party in a chain is being incorporated in the bill of lading, the head charter party is incorporated, but that presumption is subject to several exceptions.
Cargo claims can also be brought under charter parties. Such claims will usually be made within the framework of the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules, which have usually been incorporated into the charter by contract. The apportionment of liability for cargo claims as between owners and charterers who are party to a dry bulk time charter is often governed by the International Group of P&I Clubs' Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement (revised in 2011) (ICA).
As from 8 June 2015, the limits under the LLMC Protocol have automatically been increased by 51 per cent through the tacit acceptance procedure.33
Under the LLMC Protocol, shipowners and salvors may limit their liability in accordance with the rules of the Protocol. The definition of 'shipowner' under Article 1(2) includes 'the owner, charterer, manager or operator of a seagoing ship'. Each of these terms requires clarification and, while the 'owner' of a vessel may be reasonably clear, the English courts have not had an opportunity to define what is meant by 'manager or operator'.34 Charterers are entitled to limit their liability,35 as are slot charterers,36 but only in respect of certain claims. For example, they cannot limit in respect of damage to the vessel by reference to which the limitation fund is calculated.
Before the LLMC Convention, shipowners were only able to limit liability in respect of claims for which they were liable in damages, as opposed to debts. Consequently, towage costs and wreck removal expenses claims brought by harbour authorities, for example, could not be limited. The LLMC Convention removed this requirement and now, per Article 2 of the LLMC Convention (which is unchanged by the LLMC Protocol), 'claims whatever the basis of liability may be' may be limited. There are, however, exceptions so that, for example, claims for salvage, contributions in general average, certain oil pollution claims and others (Article 3) may not be subject to limitation, nor can a party limit in respect of claims to the extent they relate to remuneration under a contract with the person liable (Article 2(2)). It is also not possible to limit claims for wreck removal. However, indemnity claims in respect of salvage contributions as between owners and cargo interests are limitable.37
The LLMC Convention (unchanged by the Protocol) makes it very difficult to break the limitation limit. To do so it must be proved that the act or omission of the person seeking to limit was 'committed with the intent to cause such loss or recklessly and with the knowledge that such loss would probably result' (Article 4).38 The LLMC Convention (unchanged by the Protocol) is a compromise whereby claimants accept that they are unlikely to break the right to limit liability, in return for a higher compensation fund.39
Two particularly important points are, first, that, as a matter of English law, it is not necessary for a liability action to already be pending before an owner is permitted to initiate limitation proceedings,40 and second, bringing England in line with many other jurisdictions, a limitation fund can now be constituted by way of a letter of undertaking,41 which offers owners and insurers a significant cost saving.
States across the world have enacted the provisions of the LLMC Convention 1976 and 1996 Protocol in different ways, in particular in relation to wreck removal expenses and whether an owner is entitled to limit for these (many states have excluded Article 2(1)(d) from domestic law). Given that one state party should automatically recognise a fund constituted in another (Article 13), careful consideration is needed as to where to limit, as this may significantly mitigate against an owner's exposure following a casualty.
As illustrated in The Union Gold,42 any order for sale must be preceded by an appraisement of the vessel's value by the Admiralty Marshal with assistance from an appointed ship broker. The vessel is advertised and offers for purchase are invited, with the sale going to the highest bidder. In any event, a vessel cannot be sold at a price less than its appraised value unless permitted by the Admiralty Court. The Admiralty Court receives commission on the sale, and the Admiralty Marshal's expenses of arrest, appraisement and sale rank as first priority from sale proceeds.
the STCW Convention;43 and
England is a party to the Paris MOU. The provisions of the Paris MOU were incorporated into EU law through the EU Council Directive on Port State Control.44 This was implemented into English law through the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 1995, Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 3128, as amended. This EU Directive was subsequently replaced by Directive No. 2009/16 on Port State Control, which was implemented into English law by the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2011, which have been in force in England and Wales since 24 November 2011.
In 2016, the MCA's ship surveyors carried out 2,2,916 inspections, including 1,272 port state control inspections, and 40 subsequent detentions.45
European economic interest groupings.46
Where none of the qualified owners is resident in the United Kingdom, a representative person must be appointed who may be either an individual resident in the United Kingdom or a company incorporated in an EEA country with a place of business in the UK.47
The UK flag is currently ranked among the top performing flags on the Paris MOU and Tokyo MOU 'white lists'.48 The UK Registry also offers a potentially advantageous tonnage tax regime under the UK Tonnage Tax Incentive. The Incentive offers an alternative method of calculating corporation tax profits in accordance with the net tonnage of the ship operated. The tonnage tax profit replaces both the tax-adjusted commercial profit or loss on a shipping trade and the chargeable gains or losses made on tonnage tax assets. The Incentive is available to companies operating qualifying ships that are 'strategically and commercially managed in the UK'.49
The following classification societies are recognised and approved by the UK government for the purpose of performing surveys and inspections on UK-registered vessels:50
Generally, classification societies exclude their liability in contract. Further, according to the leading House of Lords decision in Marc Rich & Co v. Bishop Rock Marine (The Nicholas H), classification societies do not owe a duty of care to third parties in respect of their classification and certification duties.51
Annex VI imposes limits on the emissions of sulphur oxides (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) on a global scale as well as within specially designated emission control areas (ECAs). From 1 January 2020 the limit for sulphur content of fuel oil used by ships outside ECAs will be reduced to 0.50 per cent m/m (the current limit is 3.5 per cent).52 In relation to the reduction of SOx, compliance with Annex VI is normally attained via the use of low-sulphur fuel or approved equivalents such as exhaust gas cleaning systems known as 'scrubbers'. As for NOx reduction, the allowable emissions limits are split into three tiers. Tier I limits, being the least stringent, are applicable to ships built on or after 1 January 2000. Tier II limits apply to ships built on or after 1 January 2011. Ships built on or after 1 January 2016 now have to comply with more stringent Tier III standards if operating within the North American and Caribbean ECA-NOx.53 Ships built on or after 1 January 2021 (or those fitted with non-identical replacement engines or additional engines on or after this date) must comply with Tier III standards if operating in the Baltic Sea and North Sea ECAs.54
The Bunker Convention has been brought into force through the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) (Bunker Convention) Regulations 2006. This Convention ensures that adequate compensation is available to parties suffering damage caused by spills of bunker oil when carried as fuel in a vessel's bunker tanks.
On 13 February 2004, the IMO adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments. This was in response to the growing concern about the spread of invasive species as a result of them being carried in ships' ballast. The effects of this spread is recognised as one of the most serious threats to the aquatic environment. The Convention therefore aims to establish safer management of ballast water to stop the spread of invasive species. It is hoped this goal will be achieved by introducing various regulations to manage both the transfer and discharge of ballast water. The Convention is in force since 8 September 2017.55
The Salvage Convention 1989 applies in England and Wales. There is no mandatory form of salvage agreement, but the Lloyd's Open Form (LOF) is by far the most commonly used. The LOF is governed by English law and provides for arbitration by the Lloyd's Salvage Arbitration Branch in London. The latest version is LOF 2011 and, with the accompanying Lloyd's Standard Salvage and Arbitration Clauses, the contract is kept under review and updated from time to time in consultation with industry stakeholders and salvage practitioners, as well as Lloyd's. Where the LOF is not used, parties to a salvage operation are free to agree their own terms and conditions for salvage and, in the absence of any contractual arrangements, the salvors may also bring a claim for common law salvage.
Ships constituting waste and intended for export from the United Kingdom are subject to the EU Waste Shipment Regulation (No. 1013/2006) (WSR). The WSR gives effect to the Basel Convention of 22 March 1989 on the control of trans-boundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal (Basel Convention). The Basel Convention provides the framework for the international movement of hazardous wastes and all EU Member States have ratified it. It provides for a system of 'prior informed consent' whereby trans-boundary movements of hazardous wastes must be pre-notified to, and consented by, the relevant competent authorities. Contracts also have to be in place between the notifier and the consignee with a financial guarantee and insurance to cover foreseeable eventualities, including the requirement for the repatriation of the waste. An amendment to the Basel Convention also provides for an outright ban on the movement of hazardous wastes from OECD countries to non-OECD countries. This is not yet in force internationally but is a feature of the WSR. The applicability of the WSR to the export of ships is, however, a matter that has provoked debate and controversy for a long time. Aspects of the WSR that refer to EU Member State-flagged commercial vessels of more than 500 gross tonnage (GT) are repealed as a result of the EU Regulation on Ship Recycling (see further below).
The EU Regulation on Ship Recycling (No. 1257/2013) entered into force in England and Wales on 30 December 2013 and applied from December 2015. The Regulation is applicable to all ships of 500 GT or greater flying an EU Member State flag and ships flying a non-EU Member State flag calling at a port or anchorage of an EU Member State. The main aim of the Regulation is to prevent, reduce, minimise and, to the extent practicable, eliminate accidents, injuries and other adverse effects on human health and the environment caused by ship recycling, and to enhance safety and the protection of human health and of the marine environment throughout a ship's life cycle, in particular ensuring that hazardous waste from ship recycling is subject to environmentally sound management (Article 1). The Regulation also aims to provide an interim solution for the recycling of ships owned by EU companies or registered in EU Member States pending the entry into force of the Hong Kong Convention.
as of 31 December 2018 owners of EU-flagged ships have to ensure that their ships are only recycled in recycling facilities that have been approved and included in a 'European List', the latest version of which was published on 6 December 2018.56
The Maritime Labour Convention 2006 (MLC) entered into force in England and Wales on 14 August 2014, the United Kingdom having been the 41st ILO Member State to ratify the MLC on 14 August 2013. The MLC replaces various existing conventions and provides a new framework aimed at protecting seafarers' rights.
London continues to be pre-eminent in global shipping, with around 40 per cent of international charter parties fixed in the city and more than one-fifth of all marine insurance policies globally being written through London. P&I insurers are mostly managed out of London and almost 20 per cent of the world fleet is classed by London's Lloyd's Register.57
The majority of shipping contracts are governed by English law and London is the leading shipping arbitration centre, measured by a number of annual arbitrator appointments.58 Singapore dealt with less than 10 per cent of London's case volume in 2016.59 In addition, the specialist courts that hear the majority of shipping litigation (the Commercial and Admiralty Courts) continue to enjoy an excellent reputation internationally. This is highlighted by the fact that 72 per cent of cases heard in the English Commercial Court in 2016 to 2017 involved litigants based outside England and Wales.60
London also continues to be a major centre for mediation, with a total value of cases mediated each year of around £11.5 billion, including many shipping cases. Mediation remains attractive as settlement rates continue to be high, with mediators reporting an aggregate settlement rate of around 89 per cent of all cases in an audit conducted in 2018.61
Following the 'Brexit' referendum, Lloyd's insurance market confirmed that it would be opening an office in Brussels to secure 'passporting' rights into EU countries. Other insurers have indicated that they will follow suit. Questions have been raised about whether the maritime industry will continue to choose English law to govern shipping contracts and the extent to which English judgments and arbitration awards will continue to be enforceable after the United Kingdom exits the European Union. However, while the next few years may see some changes to the established order of the London maritime world, it seems likely that the majority of financial institutions and insurers will continue to see the benefits of being located in London. Given the sophistication of English shipping law and the high level of trust placed in the dedicated Commercial and Admiralty Courts, it is generally expected that English law will remain the first choice of the industry for shipping contracts.
2 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/785497/shipping-fleet-statistics-2018.pdf.
3 Maritime and Coastguard Agency Business Plan 2018–2019, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/694386/MCA_Business_Plan_18-19_final_version_2.pdf.
4 UK Port Freight Statistics: October to December 2018, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/port-freight-quarterly-statistics-october-to-december-2018.
7 Gard Marine & Energy Limited v. China National Chartering Co Ltd and another (The Ocean Victory) [2017] UKSC 35.
8 Navalmar UK Ltd v. Kale Maden Hammaddeller Sanayi Ticaret AS (The Arundel Castle) [2017] EWHC 116.
9 AP Moller-Maersk t/a 'Maersk Line' v. Kyokuyo Co Ltd (The Maersk Tangier) [2018] EWCA Civ 778.
10 Vinnlustodin HF Vatryggingafelag Islands HF v. Sea Tank Shipping AS (formerly known as Tank Invest AS) (the 'Aqasia') [2018] EWCA Civ 276.
11 Seatrade Group N.V. v. Hakan Agro D.M.C.C. (the 'Aconcagua Bay') [2018] EWHC 654 (Comm).
12 Songa Chemicals AS v. Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc and Glencore Agriculture BV [2018] EWHC 397 (Comm) (Songa Winds)
13 Deep Sea Maritime Ltd v. Monjasa A/S (the 'Alhani') [2018] EWHC 1495.
14 Transgrain Shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. Yangtze Navigation (Hong Kong) Co Ltd ('Yangtze Xing Hua') [2017] EWCA Civ 2017.
15 Agile Holdings Corporation v. Essar Shipping Ltd ('Maria') [2018] EWHC 1055 (Comm).
16 CSSA Chartering and Shipping Services SA v. Mitsui OSK Ltd (the 'Pacific Voyager') [2018] EWCA Civ 2413.
17 Volcafe Ltd and others v. Compania Sub Americana De Vapores SA [2018] UKSC 61.
18 Globalia Business Travel SAU v. Fulton Shipping Inc (The New Flamenco) [2017] UKSC 43.
19 Shipowners' Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association (Luxembourg) v. Containerships Denizcilik Nakliyat ve Ticaret AS [2016] EWCA Civ 386.
20 The Merwestone [2016] UKSC 45.
21 Cosmotrade SA v. Kairos Shipping Ltd (The Atlantik Confidence) [2016] EWHC 2412 (Admlty).
22 PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC and another (Appellants) v. OW Bunkers Malta Limited and another (Respondents) [2016] UKSC 23.
23 Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
24 Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
25 Sections 11 and 12 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980).
26 Sections 2 and 5 of the LA 1980.
27 Section 8 of the LA 1980.
28 www.hfw.com/The-maritime-arbitration-universe-in-numbers-will-Brexit-impact-Londons-standing-
29 LMAA, www.lmaa.london/event.aspx?pkNewsEventID=208da443-7800-4720-84b3-7f4f3f5fc9ce.
30 Dry Bulk Handy Holding Inc and another v. Fayetter International Holdings and another [2013] EWCA Civ 184.
31 Standard Chartered Bank v. Dorchester LNG (2) Ltd (The 'Erin Schulte') [2015] 1 Lloyd's Rep 97.
32 Eder, Bennett, Berry, Foxton and Smith, Scrutton on Charter parties and Bills of Lading (23rd Edition, 2015), pages 109 and 110.
33 www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/24-LLMC-limits.aspx.
www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/Convention-on-Limitation-of-
34 McDermid v. Nash Dredging and Reclamation Co Ltd [1987] AC 906 and CF Turner v. Manx Line Ltd [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 137.
35 CMA CGM SA v. Classica Shipping Co Ltd (The CMA Djakarta) [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 460, at page 465.
36 Metvale Ltd v. Monsanto International Sarl (The MSC Napoli) [2008] EWHC 3002 (Admiralty).
37 The Breydon Merchant [1992] 1 Lloyd's Rep 373.
38 Lord Hoffmann in Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v. Securities Commission [1995] 3 All ER 918 sets out a comprehensive discussion of the new test and its application.
39 Griggs, Williams and Farr, Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (4th Edition, 2004), pages 3 to 6.
40 Seismic Shipping Inc v. Total E&P UK Plc (The Western Regent) [2005] EWCA Civ 985.
41 The Atlantik Confidence (see footnote 21).
42 Bank of Scotland Plc v. Owners of the Union Gold [2013] EWHC 1696 (Admlty).
43 The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978.
44 Directive 95/21/EC.
45 Maritime and Coastguard Agency Business Plan 2019 to 2020, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/790357/MCA_Business_Plan_2019_-_2020.pdf.
46 UK Ship Register, Guide to Registration, www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-ship-register-
guide-to-registration.
49 HMRC website, www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ttmmanual/index.htm.
50 Maritime and Coastguard Agency website, www.gov.uk/uk-authorised-recognised-organisations-ros.
51 [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep 299.
52 http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/GHG/Documents/2020%20sulphur%20limit%20FAQ%202019.pdf .
53 Lloyd's Register Marine, https://www.lr.org/en/air-emissions/.
54 http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Nitrogen-oxides-(NOx)-%E2%80%93-Regulation-13.aspx.
55 www.imo.org/en/About/conventions/listofconventions/pages/international-convention-for-the-control-
and-management-of-ships'-ballast-water-and-sediments-(bwm).aspx.
56 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/ships/list.htm.
57 www.londoninternationalshippingweek.com/overview/.
58 There were 2,599 LMAA appointments in 2018. http://www.lmaa.london/event.aspx?pkNewsEventID=
208da443-7800-4720-84b3-7f4f3f5fc9ce.
59 www.hfw.com/The-maritime-arbitration-universe-in-numbers-will-Brexit-impact-Londons-standing-
60 https://portland-communications.com/pdf/Who-Uses-The-Commercial-Court-2017.pdf.
61 https://www.cedr.com/docslib/The_Eighth_Mediation_Audit_2018.pdf.