Of weekend sailors, docks and marinas.

Decisions that amuse law professors often end up as footnotes in law books because they’re not very significant in the great run of things. One suspects this is true of Teare J’s erudite judgment about marinas today in Holyhead Marina Ltd v Farrer [2020] EWHC 1750 (Admlty), but it’s still worth a short note.

Holyhead marina, like most marinas, is a floating labyrinth of wooden pontoons and walkways designed to cram in as many weekend sailors’ prides and joys as it can. A couple of years ago it was hit by Storm Emma and boats moored there suffered over £5 m worth of damage. The hull insurers sued, whereupon the marina raised the issue of limitation, claiming that under s.191 of the MSA 1995 it could limit liability to a fairly piddling sum based on the limitation figure applicable to the largest vessel (yacht) that had visited it in the previous five years.

This gave rise to the first issue: the right to limit was limited to “docks”. Was a marina, an erection that floated on water rather than solid land that abutted it, a “dock” — a term that included “wet docks and basins, tidal docks and basins, locks, cuts, entrances, dry docks, graving docks, gridirons, slips, quays, wharves, piers, stages, landing places and jetties”? Teare J had no doubt that it was, despite its relative insubstantiality and lack of any connection with commercial shipping. We suggest that this must be right. True, a mere buoy or dolphin shouldn’t be a dock, but beyond that essentially anywhere where vessels can tie up and people can board and disembark should be included. It is useful to have confirmation that s.191 will be generously construed, and technical pettifogging about the definition of a dock discouraged. Insurers now know where they stand.

A few minor points. First, the hull insurers argued that Holyhead was guilty of conduct breaking limitation. Although Teare J refused to strike out this plea as hopeless, he was clearly very sceptical of it, again one suspects with reason. Secondly, the hull insurers advanced a hopeful argument that because the marina was in vhf contact with users all over Holyhead Port, its limit fell to be reckoned by that applicable to the large Irish Sea ferry that visited the port. This received short shrift: what mattered was the area of which the marina was in effective physical or legal control.

Thirdly, an interesting question: why didn’t the marina have a clause limiting its liability to the yacht owners who used it under contract? Or did it, but was it sceptical of the ability of such a clause to withstand scrutiny under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (yachtsmen being consumers)? It’s likely we’ll never know. But marinas up and down the kingdom, together with their liability insurers, might do well to look through their standard contract terms, if they wish to avoid having to argue the toss in future about an obscure provision in the Merchant Shipping Act.

Naming Disputed Maritime Features in the South China Sea – “What’s in a Name?”

China and Vietnam have a long history of incidents, because of them acting in relation to disputed parts of the South China Sea. A new chapter to this history was added at the beginning of May 2020, when Vietnam learned that China provided 80 maritime features, belonging to the disputed Spratly and Paracel islands in the South China Sea, with Chinese names. Three decades earlier, in 1983, China embarked on a similar naming exercise of features in the South China Sea.

Looking at the history of incidents between China and Vietnam, it was not the first time an act of naming by one of the States created conflict between the two States. An incident also occurred after Vietnam proclaimed that the ‘South China Sea’ was henceforth to be named as the ‘West Philippine Sea’ in 2012, to which China protested heavily.

But what is the legal value of naming maritime features in the Spratly and Paracel islands by China, from an international law perspective?

Faced with the recent naming, Vietnam protested. Reportedly, it even contemplated to take the issue to international adjudication in order to be settled. Vietnam’s act of protesting is significant from the view of international law, however. This is because, by undertaking a unilateral act, a State, in this case China, may have sought to assert a right, or might have sought to create a new right. A lack of a response to a unilateral act might be construed as that a State has acquiesced in the other State’s claim. In a nutshell, acquiescence is inferred from silence or inaction in a situation that a State should have responded. Protesting against the other State’s unilateral conduct may therefore sometimes be necessary for a State to protect its claims. However, the need for producing a response is intertwined with the circumstances at hand, and not all acts actually demand a response.

International law does not address the issue of naming explicitly (see more generally on this issue E. Franckx, M. Benatar (et al.), ‘The Naming of Maritime Features Viewed from an International Law Perspective’, China Oceans Law Review (2010), pp. 1-40), raising the question of how to deal with this issue. A possible answer may lie in the fact that a State has sovereignty over its territory. The latter encompasses a State’s mainland territory, internal waters, territorial sea, archipelagic waters and high-tide features, as well as the air space above them. An implication of the sovereignty that a State has over its territory, coming down to that it enjoys full powers, would be that this also extends to the naming of maritime features that are located within its territory. By that same token, the name attributed by a State to a part of its territory would be opposable to other States. Of key importance in this regard is that this opposability would extend only to parts of what can be considered a State’s territory. But all this is premised, however, on that there is one State that has a clear title over a territory. This is problematic when applied to disputed parts of the South China Sea, to which multiple States lay claim.

The precise motive underlying the naming exercise by China is difficult to pinpoint, and various motivations have been suggested for what led China to embark thereon. One article has argued that the naming was a reaction to Vietnam being particularly active in relation to the South China Sea, considering Vietnam to have taken advantage of China’s attention having been on dealing with the COVID-19 outbreak. Allusions were also made that, through this act, China sought to reassert its ‘sovereignty over the South China Sea’. This seems to imply that at least part of the reason lying behind the naming of the maritime features in the disputed Spratly and Paracel islands, is that China perceives it as way to strengthen its sovereignty claim over them. A difficulty is, however, that some of these maritime features are submerged. The consequence of this is that they are thus not territory. At the same time, only territory has entitlements to maritime zones under the Law of the Sea.

Maritime features that are below water at high tide are called low-tide elevations (Article 13 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC)). A further consequence from that low-tide elevations are not territory, besides that they lack the ability to generate maritime zones of their own, is that there cannot be a sovereignty dispute between States over a low-tide elevation. This does not mean that they are not without relevance, however: if a low-tide elevation is located within 12 nautical miles (nm) from the baselines of a territory, it belongs to the State that has sovereignty over this nearby territory. Also, a low-tide elevation can be located within a disputed maritime area: that is, if the low-tide elevation is located within 12 nm from a disputed territory – for example, a disputed island.

A few of the recently named maritime features are high-tide features. When high-tide features are permanently above water and naturally formed, they are considered to be territory. This means that high-tide features may also be subjected to competing sovereignty claims by States. Under the LOSC, islands are divided into two categories: rocks under Article 121(3), and fully-entitled islands, as defined by Article 121(2). The main difference lies in the entitlements that they respectively have to maritime zones. Whereas rocks are only entitled to a territorial sea, not going beyond the maximum limit of 12 nm, and a contiguous zone of an additional 12 nm, fully-entitled islands are entitled to a territorial sea, a contiguous zone, an exclusive economic zone, and a continental shelf; and, if the requirements under Article 76 of the LOSC are met, also an extended continental shelf.

But what legal weight does the act of naming by a State carry in establishing ownership of a high-tide feature, or to indicate evidence of ownership? Put differently, does the act of naming lead to a State’s sovereignty claim being strengthened as a result?

Under international law, States that lay claim to the same land territory, which includes high-tide features, may seek to fortify their sovereignty claim through peaceful means. However, a State’s claim will not be further fortified once the critical date has passed. Although it may be difficult to pin down its exact moment in time, the critical date refers to the date when the sovereignty dispute between the States concerned has crystallised.

As to the question which State has sovereignty over a land territory, in the absence of a relevant treaty, the main issue is which State has a stronger title. International courts and tribunals, if they were to deal with a dispute of this type, will usually first identify the acts of peaceful administration that have been taken by States claiming the same piece of territory, to then weigh and compare these acts, to decide which of the States concerned has a stronger title over the land territory.

International case law in which the aspect of the naming of maritime features played a more substantial role is limited. However, the case of Minquiers and Ecrehos, which was dealt with by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1953, does shine some light on the relevance of naming. In this case, the fact that the United Kingdom (UK) did not name some of the islands that were in dispute, was used by France to argue that they were not within the control of the UK (Counter Memorial of France, pp. 382-383). Particularly relevant in this regard is that the ICJ noted that it “cannot draw any conclusion from the naming of the islands since this question must ultimately depend upon evidence which relates directly to the possession of these groups” (Minquiers and Ecrehos, p. 55). Here, the aspect of naming did not play a significant role for the ICJ in determining which of the States concerned had a stronger title over the islands, because it did not evidence possession of the islands.

In light of the above, it is essential to make a distinction between low-tide elevations and high-tide features, as a sovereignty dispute can only arise concerning the latter. Then, a State may seek fortify its sovereignty claim peacefully. Whether a claim will be strengthened is entwined with whether the critical date has passed, however. But in the context of establishing sovereignty over what can be considered high-tide features, their naming may be an act that actually carries little weight for an international court or tribunal, if it would be asked to deal with the matter.

Fair Presentation of the Risk and Waiver- Latest from Scotland on the Insurance Act 2015

Last year we commented on Young v. Royal and Sun Alliance plc [2019] CSOH 32 which was the first case to be decided under the Insurance Act (IA) 2015. The Scottish appeal court (Inner House, Court of Session) has recently upheld the first instance decision [2020] CSIH 25.

Let us remind our readers the facts of the case briefly. The co-assureds (Mr Young and Kaim Park Investments Ltd, a company of which Mr Young was a director) brought a claim of £ 7.2 million for extensive fire damage to commercial premises insured. The insurer, Royal and Sun Alliance plc, rejected the claim on the basis that the assured failed to disclose material information in breach of the duty of fair presentation under the Insurance Act (IA) 2015. The policy had been entered through an insurance broker. The assured was requested by the insurance broker to fill in a proposal form which was prepared using the broker’s software. One part of the proposal form required the proposer to select from various options in a drop-down menu. The instruction read: “Select any of the following that apply to any proposer, director or partner of the Trade or Business or its Subsidiary Companies if they have ever, either personally or in any business capacity: …” The drop-down menu that followed this instruction included an option that any of the persons identified had been declared bankrupt or insolvent. Neither Mr Young nor Kaim Park Investments had been declared bankrupt or insolvent, however, Mr Young had previously been a director of four other companies which had entered into insolvency. The option which was selected on the proposal form was “None”. Accordingly, the proposal forwarded to the insurer showed the option selected, i.e. “None”, and the list of persons to which the declaration related. Once receiving the presentation, the insurer sent an e-mail to the brokers providing a quote for cover and a list of conditions. The conditions, inter alia, included: “Insured has never been declared bankrupt or insolvent.

Before the commercial judge, Lady Wolffe, the assured’s argument was that the insurer’s e-mail response amounted to a waiver by the insurer of its right to receive the undisclosed information regarding the four insolvent companies. Section 3(5)(e) of the IA stipulates that the assured is not required to disclose a circumstance “if it is something as to which the insurer waives information.”

It needs to be stressed that the introduction of the IA 2015 does not alter the legal position with regard to waiver established by case law pre-dating the 2015 Act. On that basis, with reference to Doheny v. New India Assurance Co [2005] 1 All ER (Comm) 382, the commercial judge indicated that waiver could be established in a case where the insurer had asked a “limiting question” such that the assured could reasonably infer that the insurer had no interest in knowing information falling outwith the scope of the question. The classic example is where the proposal form asks about convictions within the last 5 years and which can instruct waiver of information about convictions more than 5 years ago. This was not held to be the case here and accordingly it was held that there was no waiver on the part of the insurer with regard to the information not fully disclosed (i.e. the involvement of Mr Young in four insolvent companies).

_109147621_courtofsession_frame_92130

The assured appealed. The main argument brought forward by the assured was that by showing that it was interested in one aspect of Mr Young’s experience of insolvency, the insurer had impliedly demonstrated that it was not interested in others, and, therefore restricted Mr Young’s duty of disclosure. The Court of Session indicated that the commercial judge successfully identified relevant legal principles in that to found implied waiver of the insurer of this nature it is necessary to show that it made an inquiry directing the assured to provide certain information but no other information. This means that the appeal turned on the construction of a single email sent by the insurer to the brokers when providing a quote (during the pre-contractual stage). The Inner Court found that there was nothing in the email that amounted to an inquiry. Essentially, the insurers were responding to the broker’s request to provide a quotation based on the information provided. The response of the insurers in the relevant email was, therefore, an offer to insure on a variety of terms and conditions. It was not an inquiry and did not amount to limited concern of Mr Young’s past experience of insolvency that excluded the undisclosed information from which he was required to disclose for fair presentation of the risk. The insurer was accordingly entitled to avoid the policy.

It is hard to suggest that the case establishes any novel point with regard to “implied waiver” of the duty of disclosure on the part of the assured by the insurer. Although, this is a Scottish case, it is very much in line with the pre-Act English law authorities and essentially turns on the impression an insurer’s response to a disclosure might create on the mind of a reasonable assured. If it can be said that insurer’s answer amounts to an inquiry (judged from the perspective of a reasonable assured) there could be a possibility of arguing that the relevant assured could infer that the insurer had no interest in knowing information falling outside the scope of that inquiry. Otherwise, there will be no issue of waiver by asking “limiting questions”. The judgment is obviously not binding on English courts but one suspects that it is one that will be referred to not only because it is the first case under the IA 2015 but also as it relies on principles developed by English courts pre-dating the IA 2015 which obviously remain relevant at least in the context of establishing “waiver of disclosure” by the insurer.

BIMCO COVID-19 Crew Change Clause – An Attempt to Facilitate Crew Changes

On 25 June, BIMCO announced the publication of their novel COVID-19 Crew Change Clause for Time Charter Parties. The clause provides shipowners with the right to deviate for crew changes ‘if COVID-19 related restrictions prevent crew changes from being conducted at the ports or places to which the vessel has been ordered or within the scheduled period of call’. Shipowners can exercise their right to deviate by giving charterers a written notice as soon as reasonably possible. The crew change costs will rest on shipowners, unless shipowners and charterers agree that the vessel will remain on hire during the deviation period, but at a reduced rate. In such case, the cost of bunkers consumed will be shared equally between shipowners and charterers.

With more than 200,000 seafarers currently working on board after the expiry of their contracts of employment, the COVID-19 Crew Change Clause at least ensures that shipowners can sail to those few ports were crew changes are possible, without facing the risk of breaching their contractual obligations under time charters. It should be noted, however, that this is not a panacea to the issue of crew changes. Recognising seafarers as ‘keyworkers’ and designating ports where crew changes can take place safely following the Protocols designed by the IMO (Circular Letter No 4204/Add 14 (5 May 2020) should remain a priority. 

Transnational corporations and tort. Crunch time in the UK Supreme Court.

Today the Supreme Court, comprising Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Briggs, Lord Kitchin, Lord Hamblen, will hear the appeal in Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell.  The issue is:

“Whether and in what circumstances the UK-domiciled parent company of a multi-national group of companies may owe a common law duty of care to individuals who allegedly suffer serious harm as a result of alleged systemic health, safety and environmental failings of one of its overseas subsidiaries as the operator of a joint venture operation.”

Previously the lower courts have found that there was no plausible case for a duty of care being owed by Royal Dutch Shell to those affected by the alleged negligence of its Nigerian subsidiary in failing to maintain its oil pipelines.

The case may turn out to be a landmark in the law of tort. In a previous decision in Vedanta v Lungowe in April 2019, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts that there was an arguable case that the parent company owed a duty of care to those affected by the operations of its Zambian subsidiary. The observations of Lord Briggs at [61] may prove to be important in today’s contest.

  1. [B]ut I regard the published materials in which Vedanta may fairly be said to have asserted its own assumption of responsibility for the maintenance of proper standards of environmental control over the activities of its subsidiaries, and in particular the operations at the Mine, and not merely to have laid down but also implemented those Page 23 standards by training, monitoring and enforcement, as sufficient on their own to show that it is well arguable that a sufficient level of intervention by Vedanta in the conduct of operations at the Mine may be demonstrable at trial, after full disclosure of the relevant internal documents of Vedanta and KCM, and of communications passing between them.

Kick off is at 10.30 and can be watched by video link.

 

 

Prestige 3.0 — the saga continues

The Spanish government and SS Mutual are clearly digging in for the long haul over the Prestige pollution debacle eighteen years ago. To recap, the vessel at the time of the casualty was entered with the club under a contract containing a pay to be paid provision and a London arbitration clause. Spain prosecuted the master and owners and, ignoring the arbitration provision, came in as partie civile and recovered a cool $1 bn directly from the club in the Spanish courts. The club meanwhile obtained an arbitration award in London saying that the claim against it had to be arbitrated not litigated, which it enforced under s.66 of the AA 1996 and then used in an attempt to stymie Spain’s bid to register and enforce its court judgment here under Brussels I (a bid now the subject of proceedings timed for this coming December).

In the present proceedings, London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v Spain (M/T PRESTIGE) [2020] EWHC 1582 (Comm) the club sought essentially to reconvene the arbitration to obtain from the tribunal an ASI against Spain and/or damages for breach of the duty to arbitrate and/or abide by the previous award, covering such things as its costs in the previous s.66 proceedings. By way of machinery it sought to serve out under s 18 of the 1996 Act. Spain claimed sovereign immunity and said these further claims were not arbitrable.

The immunity claim nearly succeeded, but fell at the last fence. There was, Henshaw J said, no agreement to arbitrate under s.9 of the State Immunity Act 1978, which would have sidelined immunity: Spain might be bound not to raise the claim except in arbitration under the principle in The Yusuf Cepnioglu [2016] EWCA Civ 386, but this did not amount to an agreement to arbitrate. Nor was there, on the facts, any submission within s.2. However, he then decided that s.3, the provision about taking part in commercial activities, was applicable and allowed Spain to be proceeded against.

Having disposed of the sovereign immunity point, it remained to see whether the orders sought against Spain — an ASI or damages — were available in the arbitration. Henshaw J thought it well arguable that they were. Although Spain could not be sued for breach of contract, since it had never in so many words promised not to sue the club, it was arguable that neither Brussels I nor s.13 of the 1978 Act barred the ASI claim in the arbitration, and that if an ASI might be able to be had, then there must be at least a possibility of damages in equity under Lord Cairns’s Act.

No doubt there will be an appeal. But this decision gives new hope to P&I and other interests faced with opponents who choose, even within the EU, to treat London arbitration agreements as inconsequential pieces of paper to be ignored with comparative immunity.

Corporate due diligence legislation in the EU. Goodbye ‘should’, hello ‘must’?

Earlier this year, the final report of a study, prepared for the European Commission by a research group led by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law earlier this evaluated four regulatory options available at the EU level in terms of human rights due diligence:

option 1: no change;

option 2: new voluntary guidelines;

option 3: new reporting requirements; or

option 4: the introduction of mandatory due diligence requirements.

Option 4 was the preferred option and the study concluded that that any new law ought to be cross-sectoral and applicable to all businesses, regardless of their size. This now seems to be the view of the European Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders, who on 29 April 2020 announced that the EU plans to develop a legislative proposal by 2021 requiring businesses to carry out due diligence in relation to the potential human rights and environmental impacts of their operations and supply chains. The draft law is likely to be cross-sectoral and to provide for sanctions in the event of non-compliance.

It remains to be seen whether the UK intends to enact any similar legislation.

 

Corporate human rights due diligence and direct liability. Switzerland gets serious.

 

In Switzerland a public initiative supported by at least 100,000 signatories can become the topic of a nationwide referendum.  Such an initiative in 2016 obtained the requisite number of signatures and put forward a wide ranging proposal which would:

require companies headquartered or registered in Switzerland to respect human rights and international environmental standards in their operations abroad, and to ensure that companies under their control respect these standards as well. makes it mandatory to conduct human rights and environmental due diligence;

introduce direct liability of companies for violations of human rights and environmental standards by companies under their control; and

reverse the burden of proof in part, requiring the company to establish that it took the requisite care to prevent such violations, or that the damage would have occurred even if the requisite care had been taken.

Under Swiss law, a counter-proposal may be provided by Parliament which if accepted by the organisers of the proposal obviates the need for a referendum. Early this month Parliament came up with a watered down version of the proposal without the provision for liability of parent companies under Swiss law for actions of their controlled companies abroad.

The organisers of the referendum proposal have rejected this. It therefore seems that the referendum will go ahead later this year along with the Parliamentary counter-proposal.

 

What a (public) nuisance. Two climate change suits in California to stay in the state courts.

 

This blog recently discussed climate change tort suits in the US. https://iistl.blog/2020/04/15/climate-change-and-tort-the-jurisdictional-battlefield-in-the-us/  The battleground has been keeping the suits in the US state courts and stopping their removal to the federal courts. The reason goes back to two previous decisions: the decision of the Supreme Court in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527 (2011) (AEP),  and that of the Ninth Circuit in Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 696 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2012), that such actions, at least when they relate to domestic GHG emissions caused by the defendant, are pre-empted by the Clean Air Act.

On 26 May 2020 the Ninth Circuit gave two favourable decisions to the municipalities claiming damages for what they estimate they will have to spend to mitigate the effects of climate change in future years. First they reversed the earlier decision in the claim brought by the City of Oakland against BP and other energy majors that the case should be removed to the federal courts. The Ninth Circuit held that the cities’ state-law claim for public nuisance did not arise under federal law and the cities’ nuisance claim did not raise “a substantial federal question.”  The Ninth Circuit rejected the companies’ argument that the Clean Air Act completely preempted the cities’ public nuisance claim and held that  the cities had not waived their arguments in favour of remand by amending their complaint to add a federal common law claim; the cities’ reservation of rights was sufficient. The case will now return to the district court to determine whether there was an alternative basis for federal jurisdiction, of the sort claimed, and rejected, in the San Mateo case.

Secondly, in the case brought by the County of San Mateo against Chevron Corp and other energy majors, the decision at first instance that the claim should not be removed from the state courts has been upheld. The Ninth Circuit held that its jurisdiction to review was limited to whether the cases were properly removed under the federal-officer removal statute and then that the companies had not proved that federal-officer removal could be invoked. under its existing precedent, it had jurisdiction to review the issue of federal-officer removal but not the portions of the remand order that considered seven other bases for removal. Conducting a de novo review of the issue of subject matter jurisdiction under the federal-officer removal statute, the Ninth Circuit found that the energy companies had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that they were “acting under” a federal officer in any of the three agreements with the government on which the companies relied for federal-officer removal jurisdiction.

 

Singapore Passes Legislation to Give Effect to the Third Group of Amendments to the Maritime Labour Convention 2006

On 5 June 2018, the International Labour Conference (ILC) at its 107th Session approved the third group of amendments to the Maritime Labour Convention 2006. The amendments were agreed by the Special Tripartite Committee on 27 April 2018 at its third meeting at the International Labour Organisation (ILO) headquarters in Geneva. The agreed amendments were the result of the work undertaken by the ILO, in view of the Resolution adopted by the ILC at its 94th (Maritime ) Session concerning the effects of maritime piracy on the shipping industry, and concern Regulations 2.1, 2.2, and 2.5 of the Convention which deal with the seafarers’ employment agreement (SEA), the seafarers’ right to be paid wages, and the seafarers’ right to be repatriated, respectively.

In particular, the amendments stipulate that a new paragraph will be inserted to Standard A 2.1. ensuring that a SEA shall continue to have effect while a seafarer is held hostage on board a ship or ashore by pirates or armed robbers. The term ‘piracy’ is given the same meaning as in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS). Armed robbery against ships is defined as ‘any illegal act of violence or detention or any act of depredation, or threat thereof, other than an act of piracy, committed for private ends and directed against a ship or against persons or property on board such a ship, within a State’s internal waters, archipelagic waters and territorial sea, or any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described above’.

Furthermore, a new paragraph will be inserted to Standard A 2.2. stating that, where a seafarer is held hostage on board a ship or ashore by pirates or armed robbers, wages and other contractual benefits under the SEA, relevant collective bargaining agreements or applicable national laws, shall continue to be paid during the whole period of captivity and until the seafarer is released and duly repatriated or, where the seafarer dies while in captivity until the date of death as determined in accordance with national laws or regulations.

Finally, in Regulation 2.5, paragraph 8 will be replaced to ensure that the seafarers’ right to be repatriated shall not lapse where a seafarer is held hostage on board a ship or ashore by pirates and armed robbers. The terms piracy and armed robbery against ships shall have the same meaning as in Standard A2.1.

According to the process to be followed for the amendment of the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 under Article XIV of the Convention, the agreed amendments have now been notified to all Member States whose ratification of the Convention was registered before the date of the 107th Session of the ILC. The Member States will have two years from that notification to express a formal disagreement to the agreed amendments. Unless more than 40 per cent of ratifying Member States, representing not less than 40 per cent of the world gross tonnage, have formally expressed their disagreement with the amendments, they will enter into force six months after the end of the two years. Since no formal disagreements have been expressed, the expected date for entry into force is 26 December 2020.

Singapore is one of the very first States to pass legislation to enable domestic law to give effect to the third group of amendments to the Maritime Labour Convention 2006. On 25 March 2020, the Singapore Parliament passed a Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Act 2014, which will take the force of law later this year. The Bill focuses on two points. First, it makes any necessary amendments to Singapore law to enhance the employment protection for captive seafarers. Secondly, it provides insurers with a statutory right to become subrogated to seafarers’ rights where, under a contract of insurance or other financial security, an insurer has paid for liabilities arising from a shipowner’s obligation to repatriate a seafarer.