INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Yoav Harris, John Harris (1940-2023) and Domiana Abboud, Harris & Co. Shipping & Maritime Law
Seafarer Abandonment and the Limits of Legal Protection In Standard A2.5.2 of the Maritime Labour Conven - tion, 2006, “a seafarer shall be deemed to have been abandoned where, in violation of the requirements of this Convention or the terms of the seafarers’ employment”. Seafarer abandonment is deemed to have occurred if the ship-owner fails to cover repa - triation costs; leaves seafarers without the necessary maintenance and support; or severs ties with seafar - ers, including by not paying their wages for at least two months. The data shows that seafarer abandon - ment has been a real issue in the maritime industry. In 2025, seafarer abandonment cases surged by 30% , where at least 2,286 seafarers on 222 vessels were left stranded, compared to 172 vessels and 1,838 seafar - ers in 2024. Unpaid wages of seafarers is a recognised maritime lien under Article 4 of the UN Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages, 1993, but in practice it is unlikely that seafarers will have the financial means to initiate legal proceedings to enforce maritime lien proceedings – especially when employed on Shadow Fleet vessels, where the value of these old, poorly maintained vessels is often lower than the legal cost of initiating the proceedings. The Limited Range of Limitation on Owner’s Liabilities Under the mutual understanding that a marine voyage is ultimately an adventure for the vessel’s owners, the cargo and the freight interests, the delegates of the conference that took place at the Hague in August 1924 took it upon themselves to set rules that allocate responsibilities between carriers and cargo interests. Carriers are responsible for loss or damage caused by matters within their direct control (sometimes called “commercial fault”), such as the seaworthiness and manning of the ship at the commencement of the voyage. They are not, however, responsible for loss or damage having other causes, including acts or omissions of the Master and crew during the voyage (“nautical fault”). The allocation of risks between the carrier and the car - go interests “promotes certainty and provided a clear basis on which the parties can make their insurance arrangements, and their insurers can set premiums” ( Tasman Orient v New Zealand China Clays [2020]
NZSC [paragraph 18]). Accordingly, under Article IV (2) (a)–(q) of the Hague Rules, updated at the 1968 Hague Conference to become known as the Hague- Visby Rules, neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from: • an “act, neglect or default of the master… or serv - ant of the carrier in the navigation or management of the ship”; • a “fire”; • “perils of the sea”; • an “act of God”; • “arrest or restraint of princes”; or • “any other cause arising without the carrier... or of the agents or servant of the carrier”. Article IV was described by Sir Norman Hill, represent - ing British ship-owners at the Hague Conference, as the “ship-owner’s clause”, and he insisted that the words relating to the “navigation point”, which “from time immemorial have certainly appeared in the Brit - ish bill of lading”, should remain (“we would ask Sir, in our clause to have our old words”). Accordingly, the British ship-owners’ wording is the wording of the ship-owner’s clause, providing carriers with exemp - tion from liability for “navigation faults” taking place outside of the owner’s reach and control. The same logic with regard to risk allocation is imposed by Article III (6) of the Hague Visby-Rules, which stipulate a one-year time bar in The Taikoo Bril- liance [2025]. The Commercial Court of England and Wales held that the objective of Article III (6) is to allow carriers to “clear their books”; and for this reason, only proceedings capable of determining liability on the merits to establish liability are considered “suits” capable of stopping the time bar. Security claims such as ship arrests are not considered suits capable of stopping the time bar because substantive claims on merits may follow in the future, meaning that the “books should be kept open”, which undermines the commercial purpose of the time bar. The Roman Law principle of noxalis actio means that if a slave causes injury, the Master of the slave can either pay damages or surrender the offender to the injured – and by surrendering this “offending prop -
8 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook