American seamen have three avenues of recovery against a shipowner in respect of injuries sustained on board a ship: maintenance and cure; the Jones Act; a claim of unseaworthiness.
Punitive damages are available for the first of these, but not the second. The position as regards unseaworthiness was, until recently, unclear with a Circuit split on the issue. This has now been resolved by the Supreme Court’s decision in Dutra Group v Batterton ,588- U.S.. ____ (2019) , to the effect that punitive damages are not recoverable. The overwhelming historical evidence was against such damages being available in an action for unseaworthiness. A novel remedy could not be sanctioned unless it is required to maintain uniformity with Congress’s clearly expressed policies, particularly those in the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (Jones Act), under which only compensatory damages were recoverable.
To allow punitive damages on unseaworthiness claims would create bizarre disparities in the law. First, a mariner could make a claim for punitive damages if he was injured onboard a ship, but his estate would lose the right to seek punitivedamages in a wrongful death action if he died from his injuries. Second, because unseaworthiness claims run against the owner of the vessel, the owner could be liable for punitive damages while the ship’s master or operator—who could be more culpable—would not be liable for such damages under the Jones Act. Third, allowing punitive damages would place American shippers at a significant competitive disadvantage and discourage foreign-owned vessels from employing American seamen
In giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on Cybersecurity in the UK Sir Mark Sedwill (Cabinet Secretary, Head of the UK Civil Service and UK National Security Advisor) asserted, “the law of the sea 200 years ago is not a bad parallel” for the “big international question” of cyberspace governance today (see Public Accounts Committee Oral evidence: Cyber Security in the UK, HC 1745 [1st April 2019] Q93).
In making this assertion Sir Mark may have had in mind articles such as Dr. Florian Egloff’sCybersecurity andthe Age of Privateering: A Historical Analogyin which the author asserted: 1. “Cyber actors are comparable to the actors of maritime warfare in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 2. The militarisation of cyberspace resembles the situation in the sixteenth century, when states transitioned from a reliance on privateers to dependence on professional navies. 3. As with privateering, the use of non-state actors by states in cyberspace has produced unintended harmful consequences; the emergence of a regime against privateering provides potentially fruitful lessons for international cooperation and the management of these consequences.”
In our IP Wales Guide on Cyber Defence we note: “Since 2004, a UN Group of Governmental Experts (UN GEE) has sought to expedite international norms and regulations to create confidence and security-building measures between member states in cyberspace. In a first major breakthrough, the GGE in 2013 agreed that international law and the UN Charter is applicable to state activity in cyberspace. Two years later, a consensus report outlined four voluntary peace time norms for state conduct in cyberspace: states should not interfere with each other’s critical infrastructure, should not target each other’s emergency services, should assist other states in the forensics of cyberattacks, and states are responsible for operations originating from within their territory.
The latest 2016-17 round of deliberations ended in the stalling of the UN GGE process as its members could not agree on draft paragraph 34, which details how exactly certain international law applies to a states’ use of information and communications technology. While the U.S.A. pushed for detailing international humanitarian law, the right of self-defence, and the law of state responsibility (including the countermeasures applying to cyber operations), other participants, like China and Russia, contended it was premature.”
Indeed China has gone further and condemned the U.S.A. for trying to apply double standards to the issue, in light of public disclosures of spying by their own National Security Agency (NSA).
Sir Mark went on to reveal that because cyberspace governance is being only partly addressed through the UN, “we are looking at coalitions of the willing, such as the OECD and some other countries that have similar systems to ours, to try to approach this.”
Evidence of this strategy in operation can be seen at Ministerial Council Meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-ordination and Development (OECD) on the 22nd May 2019 when 42 countries adopted five value-based principles on artificial intelligence (AI), including AI systems “must function in a robust, secure and safe way throughout their life cycles and potential risks should be continually assessed and managed.”
The recently created UK National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) has sought to give substance to this principle through offering new guidance on cybersecurity design principles. These principles are divided into five categories, loosely aligned with the stages at which a cyberattack can be mitigated: 1. “Establishing the context. All the elements that compose a system should be determined, so the defensive measures will have no blind spots. 2. Making compromise difficult. An attacker can target only the parts of a system they can reach. Therefore, the system should be made as difficult to penetrate as possible. 3. Making disruption difficult. The system should be designed so that it is resilient to denial of service attacks and usage spikes. 4. Making compromise detection easier. The system should be designed so suspicious activity can be spotted as it happens and the necessary action taken. 5. Reducing the impact of compromise. If an attacker succeeds in gaining a foothold, they will then move to exploit the system. This should be made as difficult as possible.”
Alec Ross (Senior Advisor for Innovation to Hillary Clinton as U.S. Secretary of State) warns that, “small businesses cannot pay for the type of expensive cybersecurity protection that governments and major corporations can (afford)” A Ross, Industries of the Future (2016). It remains to be seen to what extent cybersecurity design principles will become a financial impediment to small business engaging with AI developments in the near future.
After a casualty the clear priority for shipowning, P&I and insurance interests alike is to clear up the mess as soon as possible and start trading again. The last thing they want is a run-in with well-meaning administrators saying that nothing can be done until form after form has been filled in, checked, rubber-stamped and filed, and permission to act obtained from Old Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all. Yet this was exactly what happened in 2012 to the owners of the 86,000 dwt container vesselMSCFlaminia. A fire broke out on a voyage from Charleston to Antwerp, forcing the crew to abandon ship and resulting in the vessel being towed dead to Wilhelmshaven in Germany. The owners wanted to send her directly to an entirely reputable ship-repairer in Romania for cleanup and repair, but the German environmental authorities were having none of it. The vessel was full of filth, sludge, metal debris and the dirty water used to extinguish the fire. This was, they said, waste and subject to the Waste Directive 2008 and Regulation 1013/2006, requiring extensive documentation, planning and administrative oversight before any transfer could take place. Owners argued in vain that Art.1.3(b) specifically excepted waste produced on board ships, trains, etc and later discharged for treatment: debris from a casualty, said the bureaucrats, was not within the exception. The result was that the ship remained marooned in Wilhelmshaven for seven months before it was finally allowed to go to Romania. The German courts, in proceedings to recover the resulting losses from the state, initially supported the Teutonic bureaucracy, but the Munich Landgericht then sent the question off to the ECJ: was waste resulting from a marine casualty within the exception?
The ECJ, much to everyone’s relief, today said that it was. The Directive had to be interpreted purposively and there was no reason to give special treatment to waste resulting from a casualty, especially as the terms of Art.1.3(b) were unqualified. Within the EU this now means that vessels can get out of ports of refuge quickly and be sent with due expedition to wherever they can be cleaned up and repaired most efficiently. And a good thing too.
The decision, under the name of Conti II v Land Niedersachsen (Case C‑689/17)  EUECJ C-689/17, is here (unfortunately only in French).
Actionable fault and general average. Due diligence and unseaworthiness.
In The CMA CGM Libra  EWHC 481 (Admlty), a container vessel grounded on leaving Xiamen on a shoal in an area in which there is a risk of uncharted shoals. Salvors refloated the vessel which then proceeded on her voyage. The shipowners funded the salvage and declared general average. 8% of cargo interests refused to pay their share on the grounds of actionable fault on the part of the shipowners. The vessel’s primary means of navigation was intended to be paper charts published by the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO). Before leaving Xiamen the Second Officer prepared a passage plan which the Master approved. The plan was inadequate in that it did not refer to the existence of a crucial Preliminary Notice to Mariners (NM6274/P10) that had been issued by the UKHO approximately 5 months before the grounding, alerting mariners to the presence of numerous depths less than charted in the approaches to Xiamen and confirming that the charted depths within the dredged channel were sufficient for the vessel. Nor did the passage plan refer to any “no-go areas” which had not been marked or identified on the chart. At trial the Master confirmed that had the chart been marked up with the appropriate “no-go areas” he would not have attempted to execute the manoeuvre that ultimately led to the stranding of the vessel.
Teare J considered the burden of proof. The Supreme Court’s decision in Volcafe related to the burden of proof in relation to Article III.2 of the Hague Rules and did not deal with the burden of proof for Article III.1. There had been actionable fault through a breach of Article III.1 of the Hague Rules Article IV r.1 provides that where loss or damage results from unseaworthiness the burden of proving the exercise of due diligence shall be on the carrier. Thus it deals with the burden of proof for the purposes of Article III r.1. It is implicit in Article IV r.1 that the burden of proving causative unseaworthiness must lie upon the cargo owner for the article assumes that such unseaworthiness has been established.
Teare J then found that cargo interests had established a breach of Article III.1 in that the absence of an adequate passage plan was a cause of the grounding.. The presence on board a vessel of the appropriate chart is an aspect of seaworthiness. Where the Admiralty gives notice of a correction to the appropriate chart a vessel will not be seaworthy unless the chart has been corrected. If the vessel’s navigating officer fails, before the commencement of the voyage, to correct the chart the vessel is thereby rendered unseaworthy. The production of a defective passage plan is not merely “an error of navigation” but involves a breach of carrier’s obligation that the vessel is seaworthy “before and at the beginning of the voyage.” If there is a causative breach of Article III r.1 the fact that a cause of the subsequent casualty is also negligent navigation will not protect the carrier from liability. Passage planning by the master before the beginning of the voyage is necessary for safe navigation.
The carrier’s duty under Article III r.1 was not discharged by putting in place proper systems and ensuring that the requisite materials were on board to ensure that the master and navigating officer were able to prepare an adequate passage plan before the beginning of the voyage. As set out in Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading 23rd.ed at paragraph 14-046:
“The due diligence required is due diligence in the work itself by the carrier and all persons, whether servants or agents or independent contractors whom he employs or engages in the task of making the ship seaworthy; the carrier does not therefore discharge the burden of proving that due diligence has been exercised by proof that he engaged competent experts to perform and supervise the ask of making the ship seaworthy. The statute imposes an inescapable personal obligation.”
Due diligence was not exercised because the Owners’ SMS contained appropriate guidance for passage planning and that the auditors of the vessel’s practices were competent. To comply with Article III r.1, which imposes a non-delegable duty on thecarrier, it is not enough that the owner has itself exercised due diligence to make the ship seaworthy. It must be shown that those servants or agents relied upon by the owner to make the ship seaworthy before and at the beginning of the voyage have exercised due diligence. Negligence by the master or chief engineer or other officer before the commencement of a voyage can amount to a failure by the carrier to make the vessel seaworthy.
Accordingly there had been actionable fault by the shipowners and cargo were not required to contribute to general average.
Life can be demanding for bareboat charterers, whether they are simply chartering in, or using a bareboat charter from a bank as a financing device.
In Silverburn Shipping v Ark Shipping  EWHC 376 (Comm) owners under a Barecon1989 charter had suspicions as to their Korean charterers’ ability and intention to look after the vessel properly, and terminated the charter. One reason they gave was that the charterer had allowed the BV classification to lapse a short time before the vessel went into dry dock, thus breaking its obligation under Clause 9 to “keep the Vessel with unexpired classification of the class … and with other required certificates in force at all times”. Arbitrators refused to order the immediate redelivery of the vessel, holding that the duty to maintain class was not absolute, but rather to renew any expired entry in a reasonable time, and in adition that the duty to maintain the vessel in class was an intermediate term and not a condition.
On a s.69 appeal, Carr J disagreed. She saw no reason to read the obligation to keep the vessel in class as anything other than an absolute duty. Further, while accepting that the oft-emphasised requirement of commercial certainty could be over-used and could not “be deployed as some trump card” (a bon mot at para. that is likely to find its way quickly into textbooks and counsel’s argument), she decided that the duty to keep in class was a condition of the contract, Breach of it could be serious in respect of the tradeability of the ship, and affect insurance, ship mortgage and flag: entry in class was moreover a black-and-white criterion with no shades of grey which was redolent of the idea of a condition.
This is something that needs to be taken seriously by charterers. Although the wording of Clause 13 of Barecon2017 differs slightly from the 1989 version, any discrepancy is minor and Carr J’s reasoning would, we suggest, continue to apply. Moreover, the right to terminate a bareboat charter can have considerable effects, particularly in the case of a financing charter with a purchase option: once the charter goes, so does the option. True, if the grounds for termination were wholly technical, in theory the court would have a right to relieve a bareboat charterer from forfeiture (The Jotunheim  1 Lloyd’s Rep. 181); but this is a difficult jurisdiction to persuade it to exercise, particularly in the face of an agreement for termination entered into by commercially-savvy parties. Charterers and borrowers, you have been warned.
Qingdao Huiquan Shipping Company v Shanghai Dong He Xin Industry Group Co Ltd QBD  EWHC 3009 (Comm) involved a claim for an anti-suit injunction against a non-party to a contract containing a submission to English law and London arbitration. Owners concluded a settlement with cargo receivers whereby the latter paid for the lifting of a lien over cargo which the owners had exercised following time charterers’ default in paying h ire. The agreement was subject to English law and provided for London arbitration. The settlement provided that the receivers authorised agent, SDHX, which was not a party to the agreement, would make the payment. Three years later SDHX sued owners in a Chinese court claiming repayment of those sums. It alleged that there was an oral agreement between itself and the owners. In December 2017 the Qindao Shinan District Court decided that the dispute constituted a maritime dispute, and that the matter should be transferred to the Qingdao Maritime Court to decide on the validity of the London arbitration clause. SDHX’s appeal was dismissed by the Qindao Intermediate Maritime Court which stated that one of the foundations of SDHX’s claim was the settlement agreement between owners and the receivers.
In August 2018 owners applied for an interim anti-suit injunction. Bryan J held that this was an appropriate cased where such an injunction could be obtained against a non-party to the contract. SDHX had sought to rely upon the terms of the Settlement Agreement in advancing its claims in the Chinese proceedings. In doing so, therefore, it had to take the burden of the arbitration clause. For the purpose of the interim relief claim the issue of whether there was an oral agreement with the owners did not need to be considered. SDHX were unable to show that there had been such excessive delay by owners in commencing proceedings that the court should not exercise its discretion. This was not a case involving considerations of comity or where there had been substantive proceedings in China which would lead to the English court second-guessing an existing ruling of a Chinese court. There was also some benefit from the clarity that had been provided by the Chinese appellate court.
On 8 January 2019 the 2016 amendments to the Maritime Labour Convention came into effect. These amend Guideline B4.3.1 concerning the provisions on occupational accidents, injuries and diseases so as to include harassment and bullying. Governments and shipowners are expected to adopt measures to improve protection for seafarers from shipboard harassment and bullying using as a reference the Guidance on Eliminating Shipboard Harassment and Bullying jointly published by the International Transport Workers’ Federation and the International Chamber of Shipping. The amendments also allow for an extension of the validity of maritime labour certificates in circumstances where ships have passed the relevant inspection but where a new certificate cannot immediately be issued and made available on board.
As a matter of EU law, moving waste across borders can be an expensive bureaucratic nightmare. Regulation 1013/2006 on waste shipments lays down all sorts of notification, insurance, and other requirements that must be satisfied before any such shipment can take place.
The German owners of the MSC Flaminia got a taste of this in 2012. En route from Charleston to Antwerp with a cargo of nearly 5000 containers, including 151 stated to contain dangerous cargo, the vessel suffered a fire and a number of explosions. These left her in an unholy mess, with quantities of scrap metal, possibly contaminated sludge and water used to put out the fire slopping about everywhere. She ran for Wilhelmshaven and made arrangements for cleaning-up operations in Romania. The German environmental authorities then said “Not so fast”, arguing that all the rigmarole of the waste shipments directive had to be gone through. The owners argued that the exception in Art.1(3)(b) applied, which excises from the Regulation “waste generated on board vehicles, trains, aeroplanes and ships, until such waste is offloaded in order to be recovered or disposed of.” The government argued that this did not cover waste created by a casualty outside normal ship operations; a Munich court duly sent the issue to the ECJ.
The Advocate-General’s opinion came down clearly for the shipowners: there was no specific exception for waste arising from an accident or casualty, and no need to imply one. One suspects the ECJ will follow suit. The relief for shipowners is likely to be considerable: it means that cleaning-up operations can now proceed smoothly wherever is easiest. And a good thing too.
The Court of Appeal declined yesterday to upset the ship arrest apple-cart. In The Alkyon  EWCA Civ 2760 it upheld the decision of the Admiralty Judge, Teare J, noted here on this blog, that a bank could hold an arrest over a mortgaged ship without having to give any undertaking to pay damages for loss of use should it turn out that its claim was ill-founded. The owners of the MV Alkyon, a 36,000 dwt bulker, had argued that there was no default justifying her arrest in Newcastle; that they could not afford to bail her; that her immobilisation by arrest would cause them big losses; and that it was only fair that if the bank was indeed wrong, it should carry the can for those losses.
Despite the fact that there is theoretically no restriction on the court’s discretion to release an arrested vessel (see CPR 61.8(4)(b)), Teare J disagreed; and the Court of Appeal agreed with him. Although there was much in common between ship arrest and freezing orders, where an undertaking in damages was emphatically the rule, for the court to demand such an undertaking in arrest cases would cut across the idea that arrest was available as of right, and also the established principle that liability for wrongful arrest could not be imposed unless the claimant proved bad faith or possibly gross negligence. This was not something for the judiciary — barring possibly the Supreme Court — to do.
In the view of this blog, the Court of Appeal was quite right not to draw the analogy with freezing orders. For one thing not all arresters are plutocratic banks: think crewmen seeking wages or damages for injury on board, or for that matter suppliers of canned food and water for those crewmen to eat and drink. For another, the right to arrest is there for a purpose, namely to assure people that they will be paid by the owners of peripatetic pieces of maritime machinery: to allow a threat to arrest to be met with a threat to claim damages would not further this end. For a third, damages for arrest may well bear no proportion to the amount of the claim: the losses caused by the arrest of a large bulker or reefer would be likely to dwarf a straightforward $100,000 bunkers debt. And lastly, it’s all very well saying a single arrester ought to carry the can for immobilisation losses: but what if cautions against release then pile on? Which of the undeserving claimants should have to pay how much? Nice work for lawyers, maybe: less good news for shipping claimants who want to get on with their commercial lives.