“Further to €55 M damage caused to RTE's underwater electricity cable by the anchor of the barge STEMA BARGE II, three related companies, respectively her Owners, Charterers and Operators, claimed to limit their liabilities to £5.5 M based on tonnage. Disputes arose as to Stema UK's qualification as "operator of the ship" and its entitlement to limitation pursuant to the Limitation Convention 1976. in the absence of authority on the meaning of operator or manager and taking into account the difference between conventional merchant ships and dumb barges, the Court was satisfied with the evidence that the limited services (typical of managers) offered by Stema UK were sufficient to make it appropriate to describe it as the "operator" of the barge. The company was therefore entitled to limit its liability.”

“In January the Court ordered sale of the vessel "Force India" in respect of sums secured by a mortgage. Shortly afterwards, despite the advanced state of the sale procedure, the Claimant applied to set aside the sale Order, in light of an agreement with a third party who had committed to repay the loan. The Court held that in the circumstances, the sale was no longer required and reluctantly rescinded the Order, overcoming its concerns for the reputation of the Admiralty Marshal's sales in the market, only because of the "unusual and perhaps exceptional circumstances".”

“To enforce a mortgage on the superyacht "Force India", the Claimant bank commenced in rem proceedings and arrested the Vessel at Southampton. The Owners acknowledged service and defended the claim. A trial of the action was fixed for January 2020. The Owners did not attend and the Court in those circumstances was entitled to and did, strike out the Defence. Nevertheless, the Court required the Claimant bank to prove its claim, given the risk that others having in rem claims against the Vessel might otherwise be prejudiced. In the event the Claimant bank did prove its claim and obtained judgment, following which ancillary orders, such as appraisal and sale, might be made.”

“Following a grounding on leaving a port, cargo interests contested Owners' claim for GA and salvage contribution. The Court found that Owners' passage plan was defective and the Master's decision to leave the fairway was imprudent. The former was held to be the operative cause, such that the Vessel was unseaworthy pursuant to Art. III r.1., depriving the Owners of an Art. IV r. 2 (a) defence and their claim to contribution. Although irrelevant to the outcome, the Judge dismissed cargo interests' argument that following "Volcafe", the burden of dis-proving causative unseaworthiness under Art. III r.1 lay on the carrier, stating that in his judgment, that decision was restricted to Art. III r.2.”

“Last year the Court of Appeal ruled that responsibility for the collision between Alexandra I (container ship) and Eversmart (tanker) was to be apportioned 80:20. The claims totalled some USD36m. The Admiralty Court recently assessed recoverable damages at USD9.3m for Alexandra I and USD2.53 for Eversmart. The Court declined to award extended loss to Alexandra I on the basis of "impecuniosity" of her Owners (said to cause delay to repairs, causing loss of market and eventual judicial sale). The owners had failed on the facts to establish the necessary causation between collision and delay/market collapse.”

“Following default in owners' repayments, a ship was repossessed and sold by the claimant mortgagee bank who then sought a shortfall from the guarantor. The Court ruled that a defence of "sale at undervalue" although technically available to the guarantor, was unsustainable on the facts. Despite the sale price being just over the book debt it was nonetheless reasonable. Nor did sale to a client of the appointed S&P brokers involve a "connected person" such as to reverse the burden of proof.”