INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Yoav Harris, John Harris (1940-2023) and Domiana Abboud, Harris & Co. Shipping & Maritime Law
only be achieved if claims for wreck removal will not be included even though the expenses associated with wreck removal may also be captured by the lan - guage describing other kinds of claims in Article 2 (1) of the 1976 Convention. Clause 1 (d) uses the wording “claims in respect of” (a ship that is wrecked), and there is nothing in the legislative history of the 1976 Convention to suggest that Article 2 (1) (d) was intended to cover only wreck claims that do not fall within the meaning of the claims listed in Article 2 (1), (a)–(c) of the 1976 Convention. As a result, the owner’s application was denied ( Tasma- nian Ports Corporation v CSL Australia , 29 April 2025). In the case of MSC Flaminia , the Supreme Court dealt with the charterer’s (MSC) application to limit its liabilities towards the claims of the owners, which were eventually awarded compensation of USD200 million in a 2022 arbitration, for damages and costs that arose during the vessel’s navigation in July 2012 through the Atlantic Ocean. Huge explosions occurred on three of the containers, which were laden with 80% divinylbenzene (DVB), causing the loss of life of three seafarers, destruction of hundreds of containers and extensive damage to the vessel. A claim was filed by MSC in 2020 to limit its liability at EUR26.5 million. This was countered by the owner’s argument that limitation of liability is possible only towards “exter - nal” claimants and not towards “indoor” claimants, such as claims by owners against the charterers. The Supreme Court opened its judgment by stating that “the principle of limited liability for maritime claims is an established feature of international maritime law” and that “its roots lie in a recognition of the impor - tance of maritime trade and the need to encourage investment in it”.
It was held that the 1976 Convention uses the word “claims” with no reference to the role of the entity filing the claim, and that the 1924 Convention pro - vides a defence to parties other than the owners – ie, the “principal charterer” (the “charterer, manager or operator of the ship” in the 1957 Convention and also the “salvors and insurers” in the 1976 Convention). Bearing in mind that charterers invest money in rela - tion to the employment and operation of a vessel, there is no reason why they would not be protected under the Conventions. Therefore, MSC was entitled to limit its liabilities, but only towards the claim for the costs of discharging sound and damaged cargo at the shelter port of Wilhemshaven – as this is related to “removal” and “rendering harmless of the cargo of the ship”, as worded in Article 2 (e) of the 1976 Conven - tion, limitation was allowed ( Msc v Conti , 9 April 2025).
10 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook