ISRAEL Trends and Developments Contributed by: Yoav Harris and Domiana Abboud, Harris & Co Maritime Law Office
In Civil Appeal 7195/18 Fhya v Millobar (2018), the Supreme Court held that if a claim filed within one year after discharge of the cargo was filed by a claim - ant that had no title to sue, the one-year time limit (of Article III (6) of the Hague-Visby Rules) will not be “cut” (stopped). Consequently, amending the claim to add a new claimant with the title to sue after the one-year period is not permissible if the claim of the additional claimant is already time-barred. In MV Chrysopigi , the Haifa maritime judge, the hon - ourable R Sokol, held that a foreign marine insurer has title to sue under the insured rights that have been subrogated to it, even if the foreign insurer is not listed in the Israeli insurance supervisor’s list as an insurer active in Israel and subject to the supervisor’s super - vision. Under this decision, the court has given effect to the Israeli legislature’s wording and meaning when exclud - ing the marine insurance from supervision and other liabilities according to the Insurance Agreement Act of 1982 (this decision was approved by the Supreme Court). In the similar matter of Civil Claim 31521-01-20 Nobel Energy v Zim , the Haifa District Court further ordered that the act of subrogation does not relate to the man - ner in which an insurer handles its insurance agree - ments; therefore, the act of subrogation should not be subject to local regulations and supervision. In M/V Xin Hai Tong 23 , the Haifa Maritime Court held that the cargo interest’s claim for indemnification from the owners for any such payment falls within its rights according to Article 6 of the Admiralty Act 1861, which concerns “damage done to the goods”. The Court further held that the law and jurisdiction clause in the general average guarantees signed after the Master declared general average – following malfunction of the vessel’s engine while navigating through the Suez Canal, and which referred the parties to English law courts – does not prevent the cargo interests from fil - ing their claim before the Haifa Maritime court. This is because the two claims are of a different nature, and the agreement between the above-mentioned law and jurisdiction clause pertains only to the general aver - age arrangement relating to the allocation of risks in a
marine adventure. The cargo interests’ claim relates to the owner’s liability for placing a vessel that is unsea - worthy into service for the voyage in the first place. Limitation fund In MV Moraz (2022), the Haifa Maritime Court denied the owners’ application to constitute a limitation fund in order to limit its liability to damages resulting from an oil leak from the vessel while bunkered near Haifa Port – and from the fact that, for some reason, the valves of the receiving tank, which should have been closed, were open. The Court held that the nature of the damages caused, namely the contamination of port facilities and the port area by ten tonnes of oil, should be construed as dam - ages to “harbour works, basins and navigable water ways”, per Article 1 (1) (c) of the Brussels Limitation Convention of 1957, which was excluded by the Israeli legislator when adopting the convention through the Israeli Shipping Act (Limitation of the Liability of Own - ers of Sea Going Ships) of 1965. As mentioned above, the Haifa Maritime Court held that the incident was caused by the actual fault or priv - ity of the owners – ie, by the actions of the local man - agers and operators of the vessel, who did not issue the vessel’s crew the required instructions, check the qualifications of the crew members or supervise the bunkering operations. Seafarer’s rights The Israeli Shipping Act (Vessels) of 1960 recognises, under clauses 40–41 (4), the maritime lien for “Pay - ments claimed by the master, crew and others who served on the vessel, as a result of their employment in the vessel, either by their heirs or their substitutes, which are due either according to an agreement, or for compensation for civil damages or by any other way”. In MV Moraz (2021), the Haifa Maritime Court accept - ed that the costs of medical treatment provided by a local hospital to a crew member constitute the above- mentioned lien. In MV Stellar Pacific (2022) and Astrid L (2022), the Haifa Maritime Court accepted claims for compen - sation filed on behalf of the heirs of two Ukrainian
300 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook