1 / 14

SHIPPING and the LAW Managing the Risks

SHIPPING and the LAW Managing the Risks. THE LIABILITY OF CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES. CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES («CS») RECOGNISED ORGANISATIONS («RO»). STATUTORY CERTIFICATION SHIPOWNER FLAG STATE. CLASS SHIPOWNER. POTENTIAL CLAIMANTS. IN CONTRACT. IN TORT:. THIRD PARTY «USERS»:

samuelreyes
Download Presentation

SHIPPING and the LAW Managing the Risks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SHIPPING and the LAWManaging the Risks THE LIABILITY OF CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES Siccardi Bregante & C.

  2. CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES («CS») RECOGNISED ORGANISATIONS («RO») STATUTORY CERTIFICATION SHIPOWNER FLAG STATE CLASS SHIPOWNER Siccardi Bregante & C.

  3. POTENTIAL CLAIMANTS IN CONTRACT IN TORT: THIRD PARTY «USERS»: INSURERS CHARTERERS PASSENGERS CARGO OWNERS SHIP BUYERS POLLUTION VICTIMS OTHERS OWNER (shipowner, manager) FLAG STATE Siccardi Bregante & C.

  4. BASIS OF LIABILITY IN CONTRACT CONTRACTS WITH PROTECTIVE EFFECTS FOR THIRD PARTIES IN TORT CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATIVE (IT. LAW No. 231/2001)

  5. CS-RO DEFENSIVE ARGUMENTS • SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY • NO LIABILITY? • EXCULPATORY/LIMITATION CLAUSES • STATUTORY LIMITATION

  6. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY («S.I.») WHAT DOES IMMUNITY MEAN? THE CS/RO AS DELEGATE OF A STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF SOVEREIGN POWERS ENJOYS THE SAME RIGHTS OF THE DELEGATING STATE: • IT CAN BE SUED ONLY BEFORE THE COURTS OF THAT STATE • IT CAN AVAIL OF THE SAME DEFENCES

  7. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY WHY ARE CS/RO ENTITLED TO S.I.? • STATES EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER SHIPS FLYING THEIR FLAG AND ENSURE SAFETY AT SEA (UNCLOS ART. 94) • ADMINISTRATIONS MAY ENTRUST INSPECTIONS TO ORGANISATIONS RECOGNISED BY THEM • ADMINISTRATIONS IN EVERY CASE GUARANTEE COMPLETENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF THE INSPECTIONS (RULE 6 SOLAS ANNEX 1) • CERTIFICATES ISSUED FOLLOWING INSPECTIONS SHALL BE ACCEPTED BY OTHER GOVERNMENTS (RULE 17 SOLAS ANNEX 1)

  8. S.I. AND CASE LAW • The SUNDANCER US Ct of Appeal (2° Circ.) 15 Oct. 1994 • The SCANDINAVIAN STAR USDC (Florida) 4 June 1993 • It. State Auditing Court 28 Sept. 1992 • It. Ct of Cassation 3 Dec. 1986 • Ct of Appeal of Paris 2010 («Erika») • French Ct of Cassation 2012 («Erika») • It. Adm. CT (Tar) 2007 • It. CT of First Instance Genoa 2012

  9. C.S. – R.O. LIABILITY ARE THEY ACCOUNTABLE FOR DAMAGE (PHYSICAL – ECONOMIC) TO OTHERS (OWNER – THIRD PARTIES) ? ARGUMENTS DEVELOPED BY COMMON LAW DECISIONS: • OWNERS’ NON-DELEGABLE DUTY TO PROVIDE A SEAWORTHY VESSEL • ORGANISATIONS WITH ONLY FLEETINGCONTACT WITH AND BRIEF OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE THE VESSEL • CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES SHOULD NOT BE THE INSURERS OF THE VESSELS THEY SURVEY • IMPORTANCE OF THE PUBLIC FUNCTIONS PERFORMED Siccardi Bregante & C.

  10. BASIS OF LIABILITY UNDER CIVIL LAW SYSTEM DAMAGE (TO SHIPOWNER) FOR NON/INCORRECT PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT (BREACH OF CONTRACT) DAMAGE (OTHER THAN ECONOMIC) (TO THIRD PARTIES) ON THE BASIS OF A CONTRACT WITH PROTECTIVE EFFECT TOWARDS THIRD PARTIES (CASE LAW IN THE MATTER OF FINANCIAL ADVISORS – EXTERNAL AUDITORS – DOCTORS) NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION GENERAL LAW OF TORT Siccardi Bregante & C.

  11. LIABILITY AND EXCLUSION/LIMITATION CLAUSES 1. TOWARDS WHOM? • CONTRACTUAL PARTY • THIRD PARTY RELYING ON PROTECTIVE EFFECT OF THE CONTRACT 2. IN WHAT LIMITS? • EXCLUSION CLAUSE NOT ENFORCEABLE IN CASE OF WILFUL CONDUCT – GROSS NELIGENCE • LIMITATION CLAUSE NOT ENFORCEABLE AGAINST CLAIM FOR LOSS OF LIFE/PHYSICAL INJURY 3. EXCLUSION/LIMITATION OF RO VIS A VIS FLAG STATES (DIRECTIVE EC 2009/15 23.4.2009) Siccardi Bregante & C.

  12. STATUTORY LIMITATION - I ARE CS PROTECTED BY LIMITATION RULE IN CURRENT CONVENTIONS? HAGUE VISBY (1924-1968) art. IV bis Limitationavailable for «servant or agent of the carrier (suchservant or agent notbeing an independentcontractor)» ROTTERDAM RULES (2012) art. 18-61 Limitationavailable for: • Carrier (C) • AnyPerforming Party (PP) • Master & Crew • Employee of C and PP • Other party performingany of the C’sobligations

  13. STATUTORY LIMITATION - II LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR MARITIME CLAIMS (1976-1996) ART. 1-9 Limitationavailable for: • Owner, Charterer, Manager and Operator • Shipowner of shiprenderingsalvage service • Salvornotoperating from a ship • Anyperson for whoseact, neglect or default they are responsible CIVIL LIABILITY CONVENTION (1969/1992) ART. III.4(b) Limitationavailable for: Anyotherpersonwho, withoutbeing a member of the crew, performsservices for the ship

  14. STATUTORY LIMITATION - III IS IT DESIRABLE? PREVENTION & COMPENSATION PRINCIPLES REQUIRE THAT THE WRONGDOER COMPENSATE THE DAMAGE BUT • ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY REQUIRES TO AVOID MULTIPLE LIABILITY INSURANCE PREMIUMS • CS CANNOT BUY INSURANCE FOR UNLIMITED (OR VERY HIGH) LEVEL • MOST (IF NOT ALL) OTHER PLAYERS CAN ENJOY LIMITATION PROTECTION

More Related