Supreme Court overrules Court of Appeal on interaction of crossing and narrow channel rules in COLREGs.

 Evergreen Marine (UK) Limited (Appellant) v Nautical Challenge Ltd (Respondent)

[2021] UKSC 6

On 11 February 2015, the appellant’s large container vessel, Ever Smart, and the respondent’s VLCC (very large crude carrier), Alexandra 1, collided at sea at night just outside the entrance/exit channel to the port of Jebel Ali in the United Arab Emirates.

Ever Smart was outbound from Jebel Ali and had been navigating along the channel at a speed over the ground of 12.4 knots at the time of the collision. Alexandra 1 was inbound to Jebel Ali but had not entered the channel as she was waiting in the pilot boarding area to pick up a pilot, and was moving over the ground very slowly, approaching the channel at a speed over the ground of 2.4 knots, but with a varying course. Visibility was good enough for the vessels to have seen each other from about 23 minutes before the collision. For the whole of that period, the two vessels were approaching each other on a steady bearing.

The High Court held Ever Smart 80% liable for the damage caused by the collision and Alexandra 1 20% liable. The Court of Appeal agreed on both issues and on apportionment. Two issues arose on appeal.

1. The interplay between the narrow channel rules and the crossing rules.

2. Whether the crossing rules only engaged if the putative give-way vessel is on a steady course.

The Supreme Court in which Lords Briggs and Hamblen gave the judgment, addressed the second issue first.

The Supreme Court held that there was no ‘steady course’ requirement. In The Alcoa Rambler the Privy Council had held that the crossing rules did not apply because the putative give-way vessel (the vessel which would be required to keep out of the way if the crossing rules applied) could not determine that she was on a steadily crossing course with the putative stand-on vessel, as that vessel was concealed behind other anchored vessels until the last moment before the collision. Importantly, there was no opportunity for the putative give-way vessel to take bearings of the putative stand-on vessel. In the present case Alexandra 1 had been approaching Ever Smart on a steady bearing for over 20 minutes before the collision, on a crossing course, enough to engage the crossing rules even though she was not on a steady course. For the same reasons the stand-on vessel need not be on a steady course to engage the crossing rules either.

On the first issue, the  interplay between the narrow channel rules and the crossing rules, at first instance and in the Court of Appeal it had been  held that the narrow channel rules displaced the crossing rules, relying on The Canberra Star [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 24 and Kulemesin v HKSAR [2013] 16 HKCFA 195. However, the Supreme Court noted that these cases concerned a vessel intending to enter and on her final approach to the entrance, shaping her course to arrive at the starboard side of it. They did not apply where the approaching vessel was waiting to enter rather than entering. The crossing rules should not be overridden in the absence of express stipulation, unless there was a compelling necessity to do so.

Here, Alexandra 1 was the approaching vessel, intending and preparing to enter the channel but, crucially, waiting for her pilot rather than shaping her course for the starboard side of the channel, on her final approach. Accordingly, there was no necessity for the crossing rules to be overridden as the narrow channel had not yet dictated the navigation of the approaching vessel.

That vessel could comply with its obligations under the crossing rules, whether it was the give-way vessel or the stand-on vessel. Nor did the crossing rules need to be displaced as regards the vessel leaving the channel. The crossing rules were only displaced when the approaching vessel was shaping to enter the channel, adjusting her course so as to reach the entrance on her starboard side of it, on her final approach. Here, the crossing rules applied and Alexandra 1, as the give-way vessel, was obliged to take early and substantial action to keep well clear of Ever Smart.

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. Apportionment of liability would be redetermined by the High Court.

In Rem Action- Demise Charterer or Not?

‘Statutory liens’ or ‘statutory rights in rem’ come into existence on commencement of in rem proceedings (The Monica S [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 113). In practice, this means that, if a ship is sold to a third party before the jurisdiction has been invoked or if a charter by demise is terminated before such time, then the potential claimant may be unable to benefit from the in rem proceedings and the accompanying right of ship arrest. The most recent judgment of the Admiralty Court in Aspida Travel v The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Vessel ‘Columbus’ and The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Vessel ‘Vasco Da Gama’ [2021] EWHC 310 (Admlty) highlights that.

In this case, Aspida Travel claimed against the proceeds of sale of the vessels ‘Vasco De Gama’ and ‘Columbus’ in respect of travel agency services for the transport of crew to and from the vessels which took place between 1 January 2020 to 31 July 2020 when the vessels went to lay-up due to the pandemic. At that time the vessels ‘Vasco De Gama’ and ‘Columbus’ were demise chartered to Lyric Cruise Ltd and Mythic Cruise Ltd respectively to whom Aspida provided the relevant services and rendered the resulting invoices. The claim forms were issued on 13 November and 20 November 2020. The basis of the claims was Section 21 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, paragraph 4 of which provides that:

‘In the case of any such claim as is mentioned in section 20 (2) (e) to (r), where –

  • the claim arises in connection with a ship; and
  • the person who would be liable on the claim in an action in personam (‘the relevant person’) was, when the cause of action arose, the owner or charterer of, or in possession or in control of, the ship, an action in rem may (whether or not the claim gives rise to a maritime lien on that ship) be brought in the High Court against –
    • that ship, if at the time when the action is brought the relevant person is either the beneficial owner of that ship as respects all the shares in it or the charterer of it under a charter by demise; or
    • any other ship of which, at the time when the action is brought, the relevant person is the beneficial owner as respects all the shares in it.’

The main objection to the claims was that they do not meet the requirements of Section 21 (4) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, in that Lyric Cruise Ltd and Mythic Cruise Ltd as the ‘relevant persons’ (i.e. the persons who would be liable in personam on the claims) were the charterers at the time when the cause of action arose, but not the demise charterers at the time when the action was brought. In fact, Mythic Cruise Ltd and Lyric Cruise Ltd terminated their charters on 7 October 2020 and 9 October 2020. As the claims were brought more than a month later, it was held that the third require of the Section 21 (4) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was not fulfilled. By the time the claims were issued, Mythic Cruise Ltd and Lyric Cruise Ltd were no longer the demise charterers.

A “maritime COVID” case in the Admiralty Court. First of many?

One of the features of the pandemic has been to throw some businesses into insolvency. This recently became an issue in P&O Princess Cruises International Ltd v The Demise Charterers of the Vessel ‘Columbus’ [2021] EWHC 113 (Admlty) (26 January 2021)  as regards lay-up charges for cruise vessels at the Port of Tilbury following the collapse of the CMV cruise line.

(1) P&O Princess Cruises International Ltd v The Demise Charterers of the Vessel ‘Columbus’ [2021] EWHC 113 (Admlty) (26 January 2021) Admiralty Registrar Davison

In March 2020 the pandemic caused cruise line CMV to suspend operations. Layup at the Port of Tilbury was agreed verbally at the rate of £3,000 per vessel per week. The Port did not look with favour on extended lay-bys as these tended to interfere with the trading upon which the Port’s business model was based. Vessels on extended lay-by blocked berths that could otherwise have been in use for working vessels whose quick turnaround enabled the Port to charge for embarking and disembarking passengers and goods and for other services. On 19 June 2020, the Vessels were detained by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency for non-payment of crew wages. A month later, the CMV empire collapsed. Some of the CMV companies went into administration on 20 July 2020. Shortly after in an exchange of emails the Port, pursuant to the “Extra Charges Schedule” found on its website and disseminated to regular port users (which included the Vessels’ former agents) by Notice to Mariners purported to switch the Vessels from the agreed lay-over rate of £3,000 per week to the “published tariff” rate which involved a dramatic increase over the previous agreed rate.

The combined effect of sections 26 and 31 of the Harbours Act 1964 summarised by Lightman J in The Winnie Rigg [1999] QB 1119 at 1125B:

“The Act of 1964 in section 26 provides that harbour authorities shall (notwithstanding any provision in earlier legislation) be free to charge such “ship, passenger and goods dues” as they think fit (subject only to the provision of a right of objection under section 31 to the Secretary of State.”

The issues were whether this power was subject to a requirement of reasonableness and the effect, if any, of the amendment from 26 June 2020 of the Insolvency Act 1986 by the Corporate Insolvency & Governance Act 2020.

(1) The relevant Port Regulation 5.6 required “reasonable prior notice” which was manifestly not complied with because the email gave less than 12 hours’ notice and the letters gave no notice at all. Less than 12 hours’ notice would not qualify as “minimum practicable”, let alone reasonable, notice. In the circumstances then prevalent a reasonable period would have been 28 days. The notice of variation was effective in accordance with that period of notice and was not required to be limited. Regulation 5.6 is not qualified by a requirement that charges may only be varied by an amount which is reasonable. The wording of 5.6 was clearly intended to give the Port complete freedom to increase the charges as it saw fit, on reasonable notice.

Although the email and the letters referred to the “published tariff”, had they used words such as “charges per Extra Charges Schedule” or similar the result would be no different. In that scenario, no one on the Vessels’ side could have thought that the part of the Schedule referring to “negotiated” rates for “extended lay-by” was the applicable part – because the negotiated rate had just been withdrawn. Equally, this was not a case of a failure to leave a berth at the required time “on completion of cargo operations”. That left only the rate for a vessel “detained at the port”. The Vessels had indeed been detained at the Port

If and to the extent that it was necessary for the Port to rely upon the Regulations’ statutory origin for their binding effect, then Section 22 of the 1968 Act would not prevent that as it makes the binding effect of the 2005 Regulations subject to a requirement that “a relevant extract from subsisting regulations” was “included in each schedule of charges published by the Port Authority”. In 1968 that would, no doubt, have taken the form of the Regulations (or at least Regulation 5) being cited alongside the Extra Charges Schedule or perhaps included in the same booklet or fixed to the same notice board. The Extra Charges Schedule stated in the top line, immediately below the title, that it was to be read in accordance with the Port of Tilbury’s General Terms and Conditions – 2005 Edition. That was, and was acknowledged to be, a reference to the 2005 Regulations which were on the same website. That plainly satisfied the requirements of Section 22, the statutory intention of which was to bring the 2005 Regulations to the attention of the Port’s users and to make them readily accessible.

(2) The position was not affected by the new Section 233B (3) inserted into the Insolvency Act 1986 which provides that

(3) A provision of a contract for the supply of goods or services to the company ceases to have effect when the company becomes subject to the relevant insolvency procedure if and to the extent that, under the provision—

(a) the contract or the supply would terminate, or any other thing would take place, because the company becomes subject to the relevant insolvency procedure, or (b) the supplier would be entitled to terminate the contract or the supply, or to do any other thing, because the company becomes subject to the relevant insolvency procedure.”

Although section 233B of the Insolvency Act 1986 was capable of qualifying the right of a supplier of services to terminate or “do any other thing” in respect of a company which had entered administration, that was not relevant here because the counterparties to the contracts were two CMV companies Mythic and Lyric, neither of which were in administration.

Admiralty Registrar Davison concluded, somewhat reluctantly, that the Port was entitled to its lay-up charges, stating.

58.       By implementing an increase from the agreed rate to the “tariff” rate, the Port, which already had a privileged position under statute, has considerably advanced that privileged position at the expense of other creditors. That observation is tempered by the fact that the Port was willing to reduce its rate to £10,000 per week (which, had it been necessary, I would have designated a “reasonable rate”) provided that the arrears were brought up to date. It was not the Port’s fault that that did not happen. Nevertheless, the overall recovery of the Port remains disproportionate to the services provided, the size of the available funds from the sales of the Vessels and the other claims against those funds.

59.       The Admiralty Court has no residual jurisdiction to moderate a claim so characterised. This claim, as with any claim, has to be assessed in accordance with the Port’s legal rights. I have found those rights to be clear.

COVID 19. Lengthy delays for discharge of coal cargoes in two Chinese ports.

COVID 19 has caused numerous delays in loading and discharging at ports throughout the world. Sometimes we have seen total exclusion of ships from specified countries, as with the UK’s exclusion of all ships from Denmark for a time in November due to the ‘covid-mink’ scare, and with the brief exclusion by France of accompanied road freight from the UK shortly before Christmas.  

News has now come in of very serious delays in certain Chinese ports. Two Indian ships carrying coal from Australia are still waiting at anchorage for a very long time. The ‘Anastasia’ with 23 crew members on board arrived off Jingtang in Hebei Province on 13 June and the ‘Jag Anand’ with 16 crew members arrived off Caofeidian port on September 20. On New Year’s day India said it was looking at several options to repatriate the 39 Indian sailors on the two ships, including a crew change at sea or at a Chinese port. 

Can Independent Contractors be sued under the Athens Regime?

Sperling v. Queen of Nanaimo [2020] BCSC 1852 (CanLII)

Athens Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and Their Luggage at Sea 1974 has been implemented into Canadian Law by the Marine Liability Act 2001. By virtue of Article 3.3 of the Athens Convention, a carrier is liable for the negligence of its “servants and agents”.

The plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained when the Queen of Nanaimo, a ferry on which she was a passenger, hit the dock at Mayne Island BC on 3 August 2010. It is the contention of the plaintiff that she was thrown from a chair abroad the ferry and struck her head on a pole.  In addition to the owner and operator of the ferry, the present applicants, Ulstein Maritime Ltd and Rolls Royce Ltd, are named as the defendants in this action. They are alleged to have been involved in “the design, construction, installation, maintenance, service, inspection, refit and/or repairs of the operating systems, equipment and/or machinery of the ferry, including but not limited to those relating to its propulsion, breaking and or steering systems.”

The applicants (Ulstein) seek a declaration under r 9-4 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules that any liability they may have to the plaintiff is subject to a monetary limit of about CA$ 325,000 (the limit set by the Athens Convention 1974). Article 11 of the Athens Convention 1974 extends the benefit of the monetary limit to servants or agents of a carrier acting within the scope of their employment.

 Rule 9-4 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules stipulate:

…(2) If, in the opinion of the court, the decision on the point of law substantially disposes of the whole action or of any distinct claim, ground of defence, set-off or counterclaim, the court may dismiss the action or make any order it considers will further the object of these [Rules]…

If the application of Ulstein is successful, their liability and the extent of their liability would be determined under the Athens Convention 1974. This is an outcome that plaintiff wishes to avoid at any cost as bringing a personal injury claim with no limit to liability outside the Athens Convention regime against Ulstein would obviously yield serious advantages for the plaintiff in terms of litigation strategy.  

The key question, therefore, is whether Ulstein can be regarded as the “servant or agent” of the carrier for the purposes of the Athens Convention 1974. These terms have not been defined in the Convention and it is natural that when determining the meaning of these terms each contracting state will be tempted to defer to its legal system. This is precise what the applicants suggest that the Court should refrain from. It is the contention of the applicants that common law definitions of, and distinctions between servants/employees, agents and independent contractors should not apply to the interpretation of international agreements given that such agreements are meant to apply in multiple jurisdictions under many legal systems (a similar point was made in J.D. Irving Ltd v. Siemens Canada Ltd 2016 FC 69 at [260]).

The author has sympathy to this approach (as it promotes uniformity of the Athens regime) even though he is well aware of several cases where courts in contracting states have applied their national law in answering questions not addressed in the relevant international convention.

To advance their argument further the applicants argue that there is a distinction between contractors who repair or maintain a vessel, including installing necessary equipment, and those who manufacture or modify a vessel or its components. It is the contention of the applicants that the former are agents of the carrier while the latter are not. Applying this logic, the applicants suggest that they should be treated as the agent of the carrier for the purposes of the Athens Convention as their contract with the operators required them to maintain, service, inspect the vessel in addition to repair, design and install necessary parts.

The plaintiff, on the other hand, does not agree the extended definition of agency applies, and insists that common law definitions remain relevant.

The Honourable Mr Justice N Smith dismissed the application of the applicants under Rule 9-4 indicating that the ruling sought by the applicants would likely not be decisive or shorten the trial and it is a point of law that cannot be resolved without hearing evidence. He indicated that it would be for the judge to decide the nature of the relationship between the applicants and the operators, what work the applicants were engaged to perform.

It is fair to say that the issue of whether an independent contractor who is engaged in maintenance of the vessel can be regarded as an agent or employee of the carrier for the purposes of the Athens Convention is still an open one. It is submitted that at trial the court should attempt to maintain the objective behind extending the application of the Athens regime to the agents and employees of the carrier. In a technical sense, the applicants here do not seem to be an agent or employee of the carrier (under common law). However, if they are actively involved in maintaining the vessel’s systems as an independent contractor should their position be any different than an employee onboard responsible for maintaining the vessel? Put differently, if their activities have a significant impact on the passenger’s safety onboard the vessel, is it in the spirit of the Convention to leave them outside the Athens regime? It is expected that the judge will be able to shed light on the position of independent contractors who have an ongoing responsibility to maintain the vessel from the perspective of the Athens regime. Ultimately, the finding will be binding from the perspective of Canadian law. However, it will certainly be an analysis that will be put forward for consideration when the same issue arises in another jurisdiction that has implemented the Athens regime into its legal system.                             

Admiralty registrar refuses to unpick contractual incidents of bunker suppliers’ in rem claims.

In TRANS-TEC INTERNATIONAL SRL AND ANOTHER V OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE VESSEL “COLUMBUS” [2020] EWHC 3443 (Admlty), Admiralty Registrar Mr Davison, on 17 December 2020, considered the meaning of “claim in respect of goods or materials supplied to a ship for her operation or maintenance” under the Senior Courts Act 1981, section 20(2)(m)

Various bunker suppliers claimed in rem against two vessels and also claimed additional sums sought for contractual interest, administrative fees and costs indemnity. The vessels had been sold and the actions were against the sale proceeds with a claim for default judgments. Other in rem claimants disputed the additional sums claimed and argued that these could only be brought in personam.

The additional sums were held to be recoverable under s.20 (m). The fees and interest were incidents of the contract and although the collection costs were further removed they too formed part of the contractual bargain.

Hi Ho ‘Silver’. Salvage and Sovereign Immunity.

 

As 2020 draws to a close, we have the first case on the application of the 1978 Sovereign Immunity Act to a claim for salvage, in Argentum Exploration Ltd v The Silver [2020] EWHC 3434 (Admlty) (16 December 2020), heard by Sir Nigel Teare acting as a judge of the High Court.

A UK company formed in 2012 for the purpose of locating and salving valuable shipwrecks lying at depths which up until then had precluded salvage claimed to have salved in 2017 silver bars worth US$43m from the wreck of the SS Tilawa which Japanese torpedoes sunk in the Indian Ocean on 23 November 1942. The bars are the property of the South African government which was intending to use them in 1942 for minting South African coinage and some Egyptian coinage.

South Africa asserted sovereign immunity and claimed the Receiver of Wreck should deliver the cargo to it without any salvage being paid. Section 1 of the State Immunity Act 1978 (“the SIA”) provides that “a State is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom except as provided in the following provisions of this Part of this Act.” This is subject to various exceptions, in particular that in s.10(4) .

A State is not immune as respects—

(a) an action in rem against a cargo belonging to that State if both the cargo and the ship carrying it were, at the time when the cause of action arose, in use or intended for use for commercial purposes; “

The key question was whether the bars of silver and the vessel carrying them were, at the time the cause of action arose, in use or intended for use for commercial purposes.

South Africa argued that cargo was not in use during the voyage, but this did not determine the question of state immunity because it remained to consider whether the cargo was intended for use for commercial purposes. Sir Nigel Teare had difficulty in accepting that there is a principled reason for state immunity from the court’s adjudicative jurisdiction in an action in rem claiming salvage where the state has chosen to have its cargo carried by sea pursuant to a contract of carriage just like any private owner of cargo and has therefore exposed itself to claims for salvage like any private owner of cargo. The cargo of silver was intended to be used for commercial purposes, because it had been bought from the Bombay Mint and shipped commercially, and its intended us as part of a sovereign activity of producing South African cargo did not affect its status as commercial cargo.

The character or status of the cargo in 1942 was relevant to the character or status of the cargo in 2017, and there was no reason to conclude that the character or status of the cargo in 1942 as a cargo used for the commercial purposes of a contract of carriage had changed by then. For the character or status of the cargo in 1942 to have changed by 2017 there must have been some decision by the South Africa to change it. There was none on the facts of this case.

Accordingly, Sir Nigel Teare found that the matter fell within the ‘commercial purposes’ exception in the SIA. This conclusion was consistent with the obiter approach of Gross J., in the Altair that the cargo in that case was a commercial cargo (in use for commercial purposes) because it had been bought and shipped commercially, notwithstanding that it was to be used as part of the Public Distribution System.

It was therefore unnecessary to consider whether, if, contrary to this conclusion, the cargo was not in use for commercial purposes it was intended to be used for commercial purposes. On the facts it was intended to be used substantially for the government or sovereign purpose of producing South African Union coinage which was a sovereign or governmental activity.

War Risks and Kidnap & Ransom in charter do not exclude GA claim for piracy under bills of lading.

The Polar [2020] EWHC 3318 (Comm) – HERCULITO MARITIME LIMITED v. GUNVOR INTERNATIONAL BV – involved an appeal pursuant to section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, in respect of a claim by shipowners against cargo owners under six bills of lading for general average  in respect of ransom payments made by owners to pirates. under the relevant bills of lading. The general average expenditure was the payment of a ransom to pirates to enable the release of the vessel so that she could complete her voyage.  Cargo owners contended that the GA claim was barred because the bills of lading incorporated the terms of the relevant charterparty under which the shipowners’ only remedy in the event of having to pay a ransom to pirates was to recover the same under the terms of a Kidnap and Ransom insurance policy and a War Risks policy taken out by the shipowners, the premium for which was, pursuant to the charterparty, payable by the charterers. Previous cases on incorporation had involved demurrage clauses and jurisdiction and arbitration clause. Incorporation of insurance terms and their possible constitution of a complete code excluding other remedies, such as claiming in GA, was a novelty.

The clauses were incorporated as directly germane to the loading, carriage and discharge of the cargo, but they provided  for payment of the premiums

by charterers and this language would not be manipulated so as to include bills of lading holders. Sir Nigel Teare, acting as a Judge of the High Court, held that “to substitute “bill of lading holders” for “Charterers” when reading clause 39 into the bills would be inconsistent with the obligation of the bill of lading holders to pay freight as per the charterparty as the price for the performance by the Owners of the contract of carriage. It would mean that the holders of the bills of lading, in the event that certain liberties were exercised by the Owners, had to pay may more than the agreed freight for the performance of the contract of carriage. Moreover, such additional sums would be unknown and unlimited.”  Similar provisions applied as regards kidnap and ransom insurance premiums payable under the Gulf of Aden clause.

As regards, the argument that the charter provisions on payment of the premiums constituted a ‘complete code’ excluding owners’ remedies in the event of piracy, this was certainly the position as regards the charterers. On the true construction of the charter the parties had agreed to look to the additional policies for the recovery of relevant losses and so the Owners were precluded by that agreement from seeking to recover that loss by way of a contribution in general average. However, as regards the position under the bill of lading, the only parts of the clauses in question which have been incorporated into the bills so as to bind the holders of the bills were the liberties conferred on the Owners not to complete the voyage or to depart from the usual or expected route. There was an important difference between the position under the Charter and the position under the bills of lading –  it could not be said of the bill of lading holders, as Lord Roskill said of the charterers in the Evia No.2, that theyhad paid the premiums not only for no benefit for themselves but without shedding any of their liability to contribute in general average in respect of losses caused by the additional insured perils. The point was not that the Owners had agreed to transit the Gulf of Aden at no cost to themselves, but that the charterers had agreed to pay for the insurance.

For these reasons the contract of carriage contained in or evidenced by the bills of lading did not contain an agreement by the Owners not to seek a contribution in general average from the holders of the bills from liability in respect of losses covered by the additional insurance taken out by the Owners.

The Third Group of Amendments to the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 Enters into force Later this Month

Later this month, the third group of amendments to the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 will be entering into force (26 December 2020). While these amendments have been discussed in a previous post on this blog https://iistl.blog/2020/06/10/singapore-passes-legislation-to-give-effect-to-the-third-group-of-amendments-to-the-maritime-labour-convention-2006/ , it may be worth reminding that they relate to Standard A 2.1, Standard A 2.2 and Regulation 2.5 of the Convention. The amendments ensure that a seafarer’s employment agreement (SEA) shall continue to have effect, wages and other contractual benefits under the SEA, relevant collective bargaining agreements or applicable national laws shall continue to be paid and the seafarers’ right to be repatriated shall not lapse for as long as a seafarer is held hostage on board a ship or ashore by pirates and armed robbers.

UK lifts embargo on vessels from Denmark in ‘Covid-mink’ crisis.

On 18 November the UK lifted its embargo on vessels from Denmark coming into UK ports which was imposed on 8 November. The new rules are:

Vessels and aircraft travelling directly from Denmark are not permitted to moor or land in England if they carry any passengers.

Aircraft and vessels which do not carry passengers (freight-only) will be allowed to land and moor in England as usual.

Any crew members who land or dock in the UK, who have been in Denmark in the 14 days before their arrival, must self isolate.

Crew members will only be allowed to enter (cross border control) if they are British nationals, Irish nationals or have the right to reside in the UK.