Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers
CHAMBERS GLOBAL PRACTICE GUIDES
Shipping 2026 Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers
Contributing Editors Yoav Harris, Domiana Abboud
and John Harris (Founder, 1940–2023) Harris & Co. Shipping & Maritime Law
Global Practice Guides
Shipping Contributing Editors Yoav Harris and Domiana Abboud and John Harris (Founder, 1940–2023) Harris & Co. Maritime Law Office
2026
Chambers Global Practice Guides For more than 20 years, Chambers Global Guides have ranked lawyers and law firms across the world. Chambers now offer clients a new series of Global Practice Guides, which contain practical guidance on doing legal business in key jurisdictions. We use our knowledge of the world’s best lawyers to select leading law firms in each jurisdiction to write the ‘Law & Practice’ sections. In addition, the ‘Trends & Developments’ sections analyse trends and developments in local legal markets. Disclaimer: The information in this guide is provided for general reference only, not as specific legal advice. Views expressed by the authors are not necessarily the views of the law firms in which they practise. For specific legal advice, a lawyer should be consulted. Content Management Director Claire Oxborrow Content Manager Jonathan Mendelowitz Senior Content Reviewers Sally McGonigal, Ethne Withers, Deborah Sinclair, Stephen Dinkeldein, Vivienne Button and Sean Marshall Content Reviewers Lawrence Garrett, Marianne Page, Heather Palomino, Alison Moore, Adrian Ciechacki and Michael Irvine Content Coordination Manager Nancy Tsang Senior Content Coordinators Carla Cagnina and Delicia Tasinda Content Coordinator Joanna Chivers Head of Production Jasper John Production Coordinator Genevieve Sibayan
Published by Chambers and Partners 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AE Tel +44 20 7606 8844 Fax +44 20 7831 5662 Web www.chambers.com
Copyright © 2026 Chambers and Partners
Contents
INTRODUCTION Contributed by Yoav Harris, John Harris (1940-2023) and Domiana Abboud, Harris & Co. Shipping & Maritime Law p.5
CYPRUS Law and Practice p.182 Contributed by SCORDIS PAPAPETROU & Co LLC Trends and Developments p.204 Contributed by Montanios & Montanios
ANGOLA Law and Practice p.11 Contributed by VdA Trends and Developments p.28 Contributed by VdA
DENMARK Law and Practice p.211 Contributed by Bech-Bruun Trends and Developments p.230 Contributed by Bech-Bruun HONG KONG SAR, CHINA Law and Practice p.236 Contributed by Crump & Co
ARGENTINA Law and Practice p.33 Contributed by Espiñeira Maritime Lawyers Trends and Developments p.47 Contributed by Radovich & Asociados BAHAMAS Law and Practice p.54 Contributed by Alexiou, Knowles & Co. Trends and Developments p.71 Contributed by Alexiou, Knowles & Co.
INDONESIA Law and Practice p.254 Contributed by SSEK Law Firm Trends and Developments p.273 Contributed by ABNR Counsellors at Law ISRAEL Law and Practice p.278 Contributed by J.SPRINZAK Trends and Developments p.296 Contributed by Harris & Co Maritime Law Office
BELGIUM Law and Practice p.76 Contributed by Kegels Advocaten
BRAZIL Law and Practice p.93 Contributed by Kincaid | Mendes Vianna Advogados
JAPAN Law and Practice p.303 Contributed by TMI Associates Trends and Developments p.319 Contributed by City-Yuwa Partners LATVIA Law and Practice p.326 Contributed by Marine Legal Bureau LIBERIA Trends and Developments p.339 Contributed by Berman Legal LLC
Trends and Developments p.109 Contributed by Salomão Advogados CANADA Law and Practice p.114 Contributed by Gardiner Roberts LLP CHILE Law and Practice p.129 Contributed by JJR Abogados CHINA Law and Practice p.146 Contributed by Wang Jing & Co Trends and Developments p.166 Contributed by Kangda Law Firm
MALTA Law and Practice p.341 Contributed by Fenech & Fenech Advocates Trends and Developments p.363 Contributed by Fenech & Fenech Advocates
COLOMBIA Law and Practice p.171 Contributed by Franco & Abogados Asociados
3 CHAMBERS.COM
Contents
MARSHALL ISLANDS Trends and Developments p.368 Contributed by Berman Legal LLC MOZAMBIQUE Law and Practice p.371 Contributed by VdA Trends and Developments p.387 Contributed by VdA NETHERLANDS Law and Practice p.392 Contributed by HerikLegal NIGERIA Law and Practice p.408 Contributed by Bloomfield LP NORWAY Law and Practice p.427 Contributed by Kvale Advokatfirma DA Trends and Developments p.443 Contributed by Kvale Advokatfirma DA Contributed by Daudpota International Trends and Developments p.467 Contributed by Daudpota International PANAMA Law and Practice p.470 Contributed by Patton Moreno & Asvat Trends and Developments p.487 Contributed by Patton Moreno & Asvat PHILIPPINES Law and Practice p.492 Contributed by VeraLaw Trends and Developments p.506 Contributed by VeraLaw PAKISTAN Law and Practice p.448
SAUDI ARABIA Law and Practice p.516 Contributed by Daudpota International (in alliance with Khalil Aljehani Law Firm) Trends and Developments p.535 Contributed by Daudpota International (in alliance with Khalil Aljehani Law Firm)
SINGAPORE Law and Practice p.540 Contributed by DennisMathiew
SOUTH KOREA Law and Practice p.555 Contributed by D&A LLC SPAIN Law and Practice p.568
Contributed by Aiyon Abogados SLP Trends and Developments p.586 Contributed by BUFETE A. PRATS SWEDEN Law and Practice p.592 Contributed by Advokatfirman Vinge KB
TÜRKIYE Law and Practice p.606 Contributed by Esenyel|Partners Lawyers & Consultants Trends and Developments p.620 Contributed by Esenyel|Partners Lawyers & Consultants
UAE Law and Practice p.626 Contributed by Attalah Legal Consultancy Trends and Developments p.646 Contributed by Ship Law Sea FZ LLE UK Law and Practice p.651 Contributed by Bargate Murray Trends and Developments p.664 Contributed by Bargate Murray USA – CALIFORNIA Trends and Developments p.671 Contributed by Kaye, Rose and Partners LLP
PORTUGAL Trends and Developments p.512 Contributed by Gouveia Pereira & Associados – Sociedade de Advogados, SP, RL
4 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION
Contributed by: Yoav Harris, John Harris (1940-2023) and Domiana Abboud, Harris & Co. Shipping & Maritime Law
Harris & Co. Shipping & Maritime Law was es- tablished in 1977 by the late advocate John Harris (1940–2023) and handles a lot of legal work in various areas of the law. Its main focus is on maritime and ad - miralty law, including ship arrests, charterparty dis - putes, cargo claims, the sale and purchase of ships, the financing of ship purchases, arbitration and com - mercial litigation. The firm represents ship-owners, charterers, agents, freight forwarders, P&I clubs, oil refineries and other commercial entities in shipping
and maritime law matters. Harris & Co receives in - structions from the foremost shipping and maritime law departments of international law firms and keeps abreast of English and other jurisdictions’ maritime law judgments and publications. Also, the firm is reg - ularly instructed by legal firms abroad requiring legal assistance in maritime matters relating to Israel. The firm regularly receives “top tier” ratings from Cham - bers & Partners, among other legal directories.
Contributing Editors
Yoav Harris graduated in 1999 summa cum laude from the law faculty of Haifa University. Yoav specialises in maritime law and commercial litigation. He is known for his deep and wide legal knowledge,
John Harris (1940-2023) was a founding partner of Harris & Co.
Domiana Abboud is an associate attorney at Harris & Co. She graduated from the University of Haifa Faculty of Law in 2019. Prior to joining Harris & Co., Domiana gained valuable experience as a law clerk to
the sharpness of his written and verbal pleadings, the quality of his cross-examinations and his skill in obtaining successful, satisfactory outcomes for his clients. Yoav contributes articles to the Israeli monthly magazine The Cargo and is co-author, with John Harris, of the Israeli chapters of the annual Ship Arrest in Practice guide of Shiparrested.com. He is also the editor of the Chambers Shipping Global Practice Guide and the Israeli chapters of the international shipping guides of other legal directories.
a judge at the Haifa District Court and as an associate attorney at one of Israel’s leading law firms. Since 2021, she has been part of Harris & Co, where she specialises in maritime law and commercial litigation. Domiana is currently an LLM candidate in International Corporate and Commercial Law at King’s College London.
Harris & Co Maritime Law Office 16 Pal-Yam St, 5th Fl Haifa 330952 Israel
Tel: +972 54 420 2951 Fax: +927 04 874 4040 Email: yoavh@maritime-law.co.il Web: www.lawships.com
5 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Yoav Harris, John Harris (1940-2023) and Domiana Abboud, Harris & Co. Shipping & Maritime Law
Worldwide Conflicts A ceasefire between Hamas and Israel came into effect on 9 October 2025, following President Trump’s 20-point “Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Con - flict”, halting the most recent round of the ongoing con - flict, which began with Hamas attacks on 7 October 2023. The Sumud Flotilla, comprising approximately 50 vessels, attempted to breach the naval blockade imposed on January 2009 on the Gaza shore, which led to a confiscation claim brought by the state of Israel before the Haifa Maritime Court. The court was asked to use the authority vested in it as a prize court by the Colonial Court’s Act 1890 and the Naval Prize Act 1864, through a King’s Order in Council in 1937 rendered during the British Mandate over what was called Palestine-Israel at that time. The Haifa Maritime Court’s authority as a prize court was invoked by the State of Israel’s application for the confiscation of the small vessel named Estelle (2012), and has thereafter been exercised on the vessels Marianne (2016), Zaytuna Olivia (2019) and Freedom (2021). In those cases, the vessels were sold, and the remaining proceeds were awarded to the Israeli Min - istry of Treasury. The present application for confis - cation of the Sumud Flotilla vessels seems to mark another development in this aspect of maritime law, which always evolves according to either the reality of commerce and trade or naval warfare. While confiscation proceedings before the Haifa Mari - time Court are brought before the courts’ adjudication “forthwith, and without bulk broken” in accordance with clause 16 of the Naval Prize Act, the US bomb - ing of vessels described as “Venezuelan drug boats” seems contrary to the principle of freedom of naviga - tion under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which orders that “the high seas are open to all states” (Article 87) and guarantees the right of innocent passage even through territorial seas (Article 17). UNCLOS indeed recognises the right of hot pursuit of a foreign vessel that has violated the laws and regulations of the pursuing state, provided that such pursuit is commenced when the foreign ship is within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone (Arti - cle 111). It also recognises the right of seizure of a pirate ship on the high seas (Article 105) but does not provide any further drastic measures. Moreover,
the US Navy’s Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operation 2007 requires, under clause 7.10, that “captured vessels... are sent to port under bellig - erent jurisdiction as a prize for adjudication by a prize court” and presents a scheme that seems different from the bombing of vessels carried out by US forces. Protests against the Iranian regime could result in a reduction in Iran’s support for its proxies, including the Houthis, who have control of the Bab al-Mandab strait and of navigation in the Red Sea, and who were responsible for more than 100 attacks on navigating vessels between October 2023 and 2025. Although these attacks were intended to disrupt Israel’s ship - ping trade, the main party affected was the Suez Canal itself, which suffered revenue losses amounting to billions of dollars as vessels diverted to an alterna- tive, longer route around Africa. Latest Developments in Autonomous Ships and the MASS Code The technological and legal evolution of autonomous ships is continuing at a rapid pace, particularly for military use. After sinking the Russian ships Ivanovets (on 1 Febru- ary 2024) and Tsezar Kunikov (on 14 February 2024), Ukraine naval drones sunk Sergey Kotov , a patrol ship of the Russian Navy, on 5 March 2024. On 31 Decem - ber 2024, for the first time, a Ukrainian naval drone, Magura 5 , reportedly successfully hit and downed an air target – a Russian Mi-8 helicopter on Crimea’s west coast. On January 2025, Ukraine launched FPV drones via naval drones and hit the Russian air defence system Pantsir-S1 in Kherson region. In May 2025, a world-first event occurred when, reportedly, Ukrainian Magura naval drones succeeded in shooting down two Russian fighter aircraft. These naval drone attacks mark a maritime revolution, with Ukraine lead - ing; it brought naval drones to the world stage in early 2023, with the Sea Baby and Magura V5 , and it has recently introduced new variants of naval drones with extended range and arms. Development of the autonomous shipping industry is evident across both the military and commercial domains. For example, the
6 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Yoav Harris, John Harris (1940-2023) and Domiana Abboud, Harris & Co. Shipping & Maritime Law
USX-1 Defiant autonomous warship of the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was completed in August 2025, with a length of 180 feet (55 metres) and a weight of about 240 tons. The vessel is unmanned, with self-fuelling capabilities, and is able to complete missions without humans. In the com - mercial sphere, an autonomous cargo vessel has been developed by the California-based company Clipper - ship, while Ocean Infinity has built a fleet of 14 robotic vessels known as the “Armada Fleet”. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) contin - ues to adapt its regulatory framework to technological developments in autonomous shipping. On 17 June 2025, a symposium titled “Maritime Autonomous Sur - face Ships as a reality: the need for the IMO MASS Code ” was held. During the 110th session, the com - mittee agreed on a revised roadmap for the MASS Code : adoption of a non-mandatory code by May 2026, development of an experience-building frame - work by December 2026 and the expected adoption of a mandatory code by July 2030, with entry into force anticipated in 2032. Sanctions Against Russia and Russia’s Sanction Evasion Attempts EU sanctions against Russia under Regulation No 833/2014 (particularly the port ban on Russian-flagged vessels (Article 3ea) and restrictions on navigation goods and technologies (Article 3f)) have significantly affected Russia’s fleet of approximately 3,300 vessels (by December 2025). As reported by Kpler, the “Shadow Fleet” transports around 3,733 million barrels of oil, representing rough - ly 6–7% of global crude oil trade. To counteract the sanctions imposed by EU countries and the USA, in December 2022 Russia adopted a legal mechanism, through Presidential Decree No 961 and Government Resolution No 118, prohibiting the sale of oil if a price cap is applied (within sanction regulations). Advocate Konstantin Krasnokutskiy advises that the Russian customs authorities demand proof of non-application of the price cap, which means that oil supply con - tracts cannot abide by the sanctions against Russia if they wish to buy Russian oil, thus forcing buyers to use the Russia fleet to bypass Western sanctions.
Nevertheless, strict Russian legislation does not appear to mitigate the effects of the sanctions; instead, reports indicate that Russian oil tankers have millions of barrels of oil without a buyer . The sanc - tions, combined with Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure, have led to a sharp decline in oil production. Coupled with the inherent issues of the ageing, poorly maintained Russian Shadow Fleet vessels, it is unlikely that Russia’s oil issues will be resolved soon. The EU Deforestation Regulation The implementation of EU Regulation 2023/1115 (the “EU Deforestation Regulation”; EUDR) – which aims to minimise global deforestation and forest degrada - tion, thereby reducing the associated greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental effects – has been postponed for one more year, pushing the deadline to 30 December 2026. The EUDR cannot be discussed without consideration of the melting glaciers and sea ice, which led to a battle of control between Russia and China against the USA over a northern sea route (the Polar Silk route), which became available year- round due to climate change – and where it seems unlikely that the ice and glacier will return to their pre - vious form. This “battle” is accompanied by another struggle involving Russia, which continues to apply the meth - ods of catching and dragging (dropping anchor and dragging to cut undersea cables); on 25 December 2024, the Russian-linked Cook Island-flagged Eagle S vessel dropped its anchor and dragged it, cutting the undersea electricity cable Estlink 2 connecting Estonia and Finland. Recently (on 31 December 2025), Finland detained the vessel Fitburg, a vessel sailing from Russia, on suspicion that it had been “sabo - taging infrastructure” – ie, damaging an undersea telecoms cable running from Helsinki to Estonia. As well as deliberately damaging infrastructure using its shadow vessels, Russia also breaches Article 113 of the UNCLOS, which mandates that states pass laws to investigate and prosecute “breaking or injury” of undersea cables. M/V Fitburg was later released and continued its voyage and arrived at Israel.
7 CHAMBERS.COM
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
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Yoav Harris, John Harris (1940-2023) and Domiana Abboud, Harris & Co. Shipping & Maritime Law
erty”, the Master is no longer liable for the damages caused by the slave (George Long, Noxalis Actio ; in Smith’s Dictionary , 1875, page 807). According to Nicolai Lagoni in Maritime Transport (Global Limitation of Liability) , this principle is the legal origin of limitation of liability in shipping, which appeared in Consolato del Mar (1494), the French Ordinance of 1861 and the English Responsibility of Shipowners Act 1733, limit - ing the ship-owner’s liability up to the value of his or her share in the vessel – or exempting the owner if he or she has handed the ship to the injured. However, it seems that the sinking of the Titanic in 1912, and the high costs of compensation for loss of life and injury, prompted unification of the rules relating to limitation on owners’ liability. A Comité Maritime International (CMI) committee established in 1913 resulted in a convention, adopted 11 years later, named the “International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Limita - tion of Liability for Shipowners of Seagoing Vessels” (also known as the “Brussels Convention 1924”). This Convention was amended and updated in 1957 (also in Brussels). In 1976, following the work of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) and the CMI, a new Convention on the Limitation of Liabil - ity for Maritime Claims (LLMC) was introduced to the shipping industry. This Convention was updated in the Amending Protocol of 1996, and by Resolution LEG 5 (99) (2012) of the IMO’s legal committee. By order - ing (for example) that claims for oil pollution damages be excepted from limitation (Article 3 of the Amend - ing Protocol of 1996), the updated 1976 Convention is considered better suited to the shipping industry’s requirements and has been described as a “package deal” where, on the one hand, limitation amounts are raised (in favour of the injured), while on the other hand owners are deprived of their entitlement to limit liability only “if it is proved that the claim resulted from the ship owner’s personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such loss, or reckless and with knowledge that such loss would probably result” – in fact rendering the limitation on liability unbreakable (Christiaan Sheyouyuni Fikunawa, Law on the Limita- tion of Liability for Maritime Claims (IMO, 2021)).
The common concept of the Conventions is clear. Owners can apply to limit their liabilities towards a list of claims listed in the Convention(s) (such as loss of life or personal injury, damage to property, wreck removal, damage caused to harbour works, basins and navigable seaways), and their liability will be capped at an amount calculated according to the injuring vessel’s tonnage. Owners lose this privilege if the incident resulted from the “actual fault or privity of the owner” (according to the 1957 Convention), or from a much higher threshold of liability (from the point of view of breaking the limitation) as set out in the 1976 Convention. Both Conventions permit states to exclude specific categories of claims, such as wreck removal and damage to harbour works, basins and navigable waterways, from the scope of limitation. Accordingly, in the case of M/V Goliath , which collided with two tugs at the port of Devonport, Tasmania, caus - ing an incident requiring wreck removal, oil pollution and other economic damages were dealt with by the Australia Federal Court in accordance with the owner’s application to limit liability under the 1976 Convention (aiming to cap its liability towards claims amounting to about USD23 million to USD15.7 million). TasPorts (the injured port) argued that the relevant claims (listed in Article 2 1 (d) of the 1976 Convention) are excluded from limitation of liability following Australia’s ratifica - tion of the Convention in 1989, in which the relevant (allowed) reservations covered by Article 2 (d) and (e) of the 1976 convention were not applied. The own - ers, on the other hand, argued that the wreck removal claims were captured by the wording of Article 2 (1) (a) of the Convention – “claims in respect of loss of or damage to property” (which were not excluded) – and that the fact that they might also fall within the scope of Article 2 (1) (d) is irrelevant. After the first-instance court approved the owners’ argument, the full court overturned the decision. Turning to the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, which dealt with similar facts in the case of The Star Centu- rion [2024], the full court accepted the conclusion that it would be incoherent to allow a contracting state to not apply Article 2 (1) (d) (relating to wreck removal claims) when, at the same time, the claim fell within the scope of Article 2 (1) (a) and would be limited. Exclusion of the claims listed in Article 2 (1) (d) can
9
CHAMBERS.COM
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
ANGOLA
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Luanda
Angola
Law and Practice Contributed by: José Miguel Oliveira, António Caxito Marques, Caio de Mello Ferreira and João Saiago Canjeque VdA
Zambia
Namibia
Contents 1. Maritime and Shipping Legislation and Regulation p.14 1.1 Domestic Laws Establishing the Authorities of the Maritime and Shipping Courts p.14 1.2 Port State Control p.14 1.3 Domestic Legislation Applicable to Ship Registration p.15 1.4 Requirements for Ownership of Vessels p.15 1.5 Temporary Registration of Vessels p.15 1.6 Registration of Mortgages p.15 1.7 Ship Ownership and Mortgages Registry p.17 2. Ship Finance and Leasing p.17 2.1 Ship Loan Finance p.17 2.2 Ship Leasing p.17 3. Marine Casualties and Owners’ Liability p.17 3.1 International Conventions: Pollution and Wreck Removal p.17 3.2 International Conventions: Collision and Salvage p.18 3.3 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims p.18 3.4 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties p.18 3.5 Procedure and Requirements for Establishing a Limitation Fund p.19 3.6 Seafarers’ Safety and Owners’ Liability p.19 4. Cargo Claims p.19 4.1 Bills of Lading p.19 4.2 Title to Sue on a Bill of Lading p.20 4.3 Ship-Owners’ Liability and Limitation of Liability for Cargo Damages p.20 4.4 Misdeclaration of Cargo p.20 4.5 Time Bar for Filing Claims for Damaged or Lost Cargo p.20 5. Maritime Liens and Ship Arrests p.20
5.1 Ship Arrests p.20 5.2 Maritime Liens p.20 5.3 Liability in Personam for Owners or Demise Charterers p.21 5.4 Unpaid Bunkers p.21 5.5 Arresting a Vessel p.21 5.6 Arresting Bunkers and Freight p.22 5.7 Sister-Ship Arrest p.22 5.8 Other Ways of Obtaining Attachment Orders p.22 5.9 Releasing an Arrested Vessel p.22 5.10 Procedure for the Judicial Sale of Arrested Ships p.22 5.11 Insolvency Laws Applied by Maritime Courts p.23 5.12 Damages in the Event of Wrongful Arrest of a Vessel p.23
11 CHAMBERS.COM
ANGOLA CONTENTS
6. Passenger Claims p.23 6.1 Laws and Conventions Applicable to the Resolution of Passenger Claims p.23 7. Enforcement of Law and Jurisdiction and Arbitration Clauses p.23 7.1 Enforcement of Law and Jurisdiction Clauses Stated in Bills of Lading p.23 7.2 Enforcement of Law and Arbitration Clauses Incorporated Into a Bill of Lading p.24 7.3 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards p.24 7.4 Arrest of Vessels Subject to Foreign Arbitration or Jurisdiction p.25 7.5 Domestic Arbitration Institutes p.25 7.6 Remedies Where Proceedings Are Commenced in Breach of Foreign Jurisdiction or Arbitration Clauses p.25 8. Ship-Owners’ Income Tax Relief p.25 8.1 Exemptions or Tax Reliefs on the Income of Ship-Owners’ Companies p.25 9. Implications of Non-Performance, IMO 2020, Trade Sanctions and International Conflict p.25 9.1 Force Majeure and Frustration p.25 9.2 Enforcement of the IMO 2020 Rule Limiting the Sulphur Content of Fuel Oil p.25 9.3 Trade Sanctions p.26 9.4 International Conflict p.26 10. Additional Maritime or Shipping Issues p.27 10.1 Other Jurisdiction-Specific Shipping and Maritime Issues p.27
12 CHAMBERS.COM
ANGOLA Law and Practice Contributed by: José Miguel Oliveira, António Caxito Marques, Caio de Mello Ferreira and João Saiago Canjeque, VdA
VdA is a leading international law firm with more than 50 years of history, recognised for its impressive track record and innovative approach in corporate le - gal services. The excellence of its highly specialised legal services, covering several industries and prac - tice areas, enables VdA to overcome the increasingly complex challenges faced by its clients. Recognition of the excellence of its work is shared by the entire team, as well as by clients and stakeholders, and is acknowledged by leading professional associa -
tions, legal publications and academic entities. VdA has been consistently recognised for its outstanding and innovative services, having received the most prestigious international accolades and awards of the legal industry. Through the VdA Legal Partners network, clients have access to eight jurisdictions (Angola, Brazil, Cabo Verde, Mozambique, Portugal, Sao Tome & Principe, Spain and Timor-Leste), with a broad sectoral coverage in all Portuguese-speaking countries.
Authors
José Miguel Oliveira joined VdA in 2015. He is a partner of the oil and gas practice, and responsible for the shipping practice. With over 15 years of international experience in African jurisdictions, including Angola and
Caio de Mello Ferreira joined VdA in 2023. He is an associate in the oil and gas practice group, where he has been involved in projects and operations across the African oil and gas industry value chain, with a
Mozambique, José has been involved in projects and operations across the oil and gas industry’s value chains and has provided advice regarding regulatory issues, contractual matters, corporate and commercial, restructuring, M&A, foreign direct investment, foreign exchange, and shipping and maritime matters. He has acted for the full spectrum of those involved in the shipping industry in all sorts of wet and dry shipping matters, including ship- owners and charterers, cargo interests, P&I clubs, banks, shipyards, port operators, brokers and agents.
particular focus on shipping and maritime matters. In this context, he has served as a member of a working group of the International Seabed Authority responsible for drafting exploitation regulations for the area. Additionally, Caio has gained one year of experience in the information and communication technologies practice and completed a secondment in the shipping, transportation and offshore practice area at a leading firm in Copenhagen.
João Saiago Canjeque joined PRIME Advogados, the exclusive member of VdA Legal Partners in Angola, in 2023 as an associate lawyer. His practice primarily focuses on litigation, corporate and real estate matters.
António Caxito Marques joined PRIME Advogados, the exclusive member of VdA Legal Partners in Angola, in 2025 as a partner. António has experience in various areas of law, focusing on civil, commercial and
João also has expertise in various legal issues related to the shipping industry, including the bunkering sector and maritime litigation.
shipping law. He works primarily in litigation and arbitration, representing clients across diverse sectors, including banking, energy, construction, industry, infrastructure, natural resources, trade and distribution. António has also participated in complex negotiations on behalf of the Angolan state, including recovery proceedings of Angolan assets in the international market.
13 CHAMBERS.COM
ANGOLA Law and Practice Contributed by: José Miguel Oliveira, António Caxito Marques, Caio de Mello Ferreira and João Saiago Canjeque, VdA
VdA (with PRIME Advogados) Rua Dom Luís, 28 1200 151 Lisboa Portugal Edifício Torre X Rua Manuel Fernandes Caldeira, N.º 5, 9.º D Coqueiros, Luanda Angola
Tel: +351 21 311 3400 Fax: +351 21 354 0325 Email: jmo@vda.pt Web: www.vda.pt
1. Maritime and Shipping Legislation and Regulation 1.1 Domestic Laws Establishing the Authorities of the Maritime and Shipping Courts The main domestic laws establishing the powers and authority of the Maritime Court are the Civil Procedure Code and Law No 29/22 of 29 August 2022 (“Law 29/22”), which establishes the principles and general rules on the organisation and functioning of Common Jurisdiction Courts. Furthermore, Executive Decree No 29/95 of 7 July 1995 creates the Maritime Affairs Chamber ( Sala das Questões Marítimas ), a first-instance special-jurisdic - tion court with authority over admiralty and maritime claims. The jurisdiction of this chamber is determined by Law 29/22 and Executive Decree No 26/97 of 6 June 1997 (“Executive Decree 26/97”), and includes all matters related to admiralty and shipping law. The rulings provided by the Maritime Affairs Chamber may be appealed to the Court of Appeals. Experience demonstrates that the most common mar - itime and shipping claims filed with the Maritime Court relate to collisions and disputes concerning cargo and maritime claims (ship arrests).
1.2 Port State Control The National Maritime Agency ( Agência Marítima Nacional , or NMA) is responsible for exercising port state control over all ships, vessels, platforms and seagoing craft calling at, or anchored in, a national port or temporarily deployed at sea in Angolan terri - torial waters. Under its port state responsibilities, the NMA holds the authority to inspect all vessels oper - ating in Angola and to assess fines for infringements detected. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that Angola is a member of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), having ratified a number of fundamental reso - lutions on international ship standards and port state control. Angola is also a member of the Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control for West and Central African Region. Moreover, Law No 27/12 of 28 August 2012 (the “Mer - chant Navy Law”, as amended by Law 34/22 of 13 September 2022) is the main domestic statute on port state control, establishing that the NMA may delegate the inspection of foreign vessels to classification soci - eties or other recognised technical organisations that have entered into a statutory delegation of powers agreement with the Angolan state. The NMA is also the authority responsible for inves - tigating and responding to any maritime casualty,
14 CHAMBERS.COM
ANGOLA Law and Practice Contributed by: José Miguel Oliveira, António Caxito Marques, Caio de Mello Ferreira and João Saiago Canjeque, VdA
1.5 Temporary Registration of Vessels Article 35 of the Merchant Navy Law provides that temporary registration of a vessel is allowed for Ango - lan ship-owners who have a bareboat charter in a for - eign vessel. Based on this statute, dual registration is (theoretically) possible for vessels under a bareboat charter and for the duration of the relevant charter - party. 1.6 Registration of Mortgages The creation of rights in rem (including possession, ownership and security) or of any security interests (including mortgages) in respect of, or related to, vessels sailing under the Angolan flag is subject to mandatory registration with the Commercial Registry and the Central Security Registry. These processes are governed by Law No 11/21 of 22 April 2021 (“Law 11/21”), which governs the creation of rights in rem, and Presidential Decree No 114/21 of 29 April 2021 (“Presidential Decree 114/21”), which created the Central Security Registry, centralising the information on mortgages over vessels, as well as the registration of all ship-related securities. On the basis of the foregoing, mortgages over vessels registered (or to be registered) in Angola and sailing (or to be sailing) under the Angolan flag must always be governed by the laws of Angola and registered in Angola as a condition of their effectiveness and enforceability against third parties (erga omnes). Notary Deeds Prior to – and as a condition for – registration, mort - gages encumbering Angolan vessels must be execut - ed by means of a notary deed before a local notary public or a consular office. The documents required for the execution of the notary deed include: • a commercial registry certificate or equivalent document of the borrower; • a power of attorney issued to the benefit of the representative(s) of the lender attending and sign - ing the notary deed, on the assumption that the lender is not going to be represented by any of its legal representatives/directors; • a power of attorney issued to the benefit of the representative(s) of the borrower attending and signing the notary deed, on the assumption that
such as grounding, pollution or wreck removal. In performing its duties, the NMA is assisted by local port authorities and captaincy with jurisdiction over the area in which the casualty took place. Pursuant to the Merchant Navy Law, environmental authori - ties such as the Ministry of Environment may also be called to act in the event of (eventual) environmental damage and pollution. 1.3 Domestic Legislation Applicable to Ship Registration The key domestic pieces of legislation applicable to ship registration are the Merchant Navy Law, Decree- Law No 42644 and Decree No 42645, the last two both of 14 November 1959 (as amended), establishing the rules on commercial registry. In accordance with the Merchant Navy Law, all vessels, ships or other maritime craft are eligible for registration in Angola and fly the Angolan flag, provided that previous inspection and certification by the NMA is conducted and cleared, and compliance with age limitations is verified. The registration of ships in Angola is a two-tiered system, involving a flag registration with the port and maritime authorities (ie, the NMA and the port author - ity) and a commercial registration with the Commercial Registry. 1.4 Requirements for Ownership of Vessels The Merchant Navy Law provides that the registration of ships in Angola may be obtained by any natural or legal persons that have their permanent domicile or head office in the country. Under conditions of reci - procity with other countries, natural or legal persons domiciled or having their head offices abroad may also apply for registration of their ships in Angola, provided that they have a local representative in the country. However, the registration of ships engaged in specific activities (eg, cabotage) may be subject to more stringent requirements. Vessels under con - struction may also be registered, even though their registration will remain provisional until completion of the relevant works and carrying out of the applicable inspections and clearances.
15 CHAMBERS.COM
ANGOLA Law and Practice Contributed by: José Miguel Oliveira, António Caxito Marques, Caio de Mello Ferreira and João Saiago Canjeque, VdA
the borrower is not going to be represented at the notary deed by any of its legal representatives/ directors; • identification documents of the representatives of the parties signing the notary deed; • certified copies of the loan agreements and/or resolution issued by the relevant corporate body of the lender approving the loans and the underlying terms and conditions of the mortgage, notably the amount of principal plus the amount equivalent to five years of interest; • a copy of the minutes of the resolution passed by the relevant corporate body of the borrower approving the granting of the mortgages to the benefit of the lender and the underlying terms and conditions, notably the amount of the principal plus the amount corresponding to five years’ interest; and • certificates of ownership of the vessels issued by the NMA and the Commercial Registry Office. All documents executed or issued outside Angola must be previously legalised before the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (or equivalent), translated into Portu - guese and then consularised before the Angolan con - sulate with jurisdiction over the country where the said documents were issued, as a precondition for being deemed valid, acceptable and enforceable in Angola (Angola is not a party to the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisa - tion for Foreign Public Documents). Registration With the Commercial Registry Office Once executed, the notary deed must be registered with the Commercial Registry Office. In this respect, the following must be stressed. • Registration with the Commercial Registry Office is a condition precedent for the effectiveness of mort - gages; in other words, pending said registration, mortgages remain ineffective, even inter partes, for all legal purposes. • Mortgages registered with the Commercial Registry Office remain valid and enforceable for an indefinite period of time, unless: (a) the obligation secured is extinguished by per - formance; (b) the mortgaged assets (vessel) are transferred
to a third party (in which case, termination of the mortgage will occur 20 years after registra - tion of the transfer of title and five years after the final maturity of the secured obligation); or (c) cancellation is authorised by the mortgagee. • The ranking of security interests or privileges over ships is linked to the order by which said interests or privileges were registered (prior in tempore, potior in iure). Registrations with the Commercial Registry Office are made by means of: • the filing of an official form; and • submission of the relevant supporting documents, including a certified copy of the notary deed. In addition to this, constitutional documents (deeds, commercial extracts or equivalent documents) of both the mortgagor and mortgagee are usually required by the registrar, although such disclosure is not legally grounded. Registrations before the Commercial Registry Office may be requested by a legal representative or duly appointed attorney of the mortgagor or the mortga - gee, within 90 days of the execution of the notary deed. Failure to file the relevant application within that period may lead to the application of fines, although such fines do not undermine the validity of the reg - istration. It is worth mentioning that the law sets forth the pos - sibility of securing a provisional registration of a mort - gage over a ship before execution of the notary deed. To that end, the mortgagor must file an application with the Commercial Registry Office authorising reg - istration of a mortgage over a given ship in favour of the mortgagee. This (provisional) registration is valid for a term of three months, which is renewable. The priority of the prospective mortgage over other secu - rity interests, once the definitive mortgage is created, is ensured by provisional registration, which protects a mortgagee against concurrent mortgagees and allows the execution of a mortgage without the pressure of priority being given in the register to another mort - gage, even where created later on.
16 CHAMBERS.COM
ANGOLA Law and Practice Contributed by: José Miguel Oliveira, António Caxito Marques, Caio de Mello Ferreira and João Saiago Canjeque, VdA
Upon registration with the Commercial Registry Office, the mortgages must be endorsed in the passports of the vessel(s) (deeds, ownership certificate issued by the NMA). Such endorsement is made for publicity purposes – ie, it is not a condition of the effectiveness/ validity of the underlying mortgage or of its enforce - ment. 1.7 Ship Ownership and Mortgages Registry The registry of ownership of a vessel is, in theory, public. Any individual may approach the NMA or the Commercial Registry Office in order to obtain infor - mation on the ownership of a vessel. Moreover, pur - suant to Law 11/21 and Presidential Decree 114/21, the mortgage registry is available to the public and may be consulted by any person upon submission of a consultation request to the Central Security Reg - istry. The consultation request must be submitted in accordance with the form made available on the online platform. Angola has a nascent ship finance market, with debt transactions typically led by foreign lenders that apply international ship loan market standards. The Ango - lan nexus arises primarily at the level of the security package over Angolan-flagged vessels. As a result, the most common transaction structures involve cross-border loan facilities governed by foreign law, combined with local Angolan security instruments to perfect rights over the ship and related receivables. For ship mortgages on Angolan-flagged and regis - tered vessels, Angolan law is mandatory, and local perfection of the mortgage is essential (please refer to 1.6 Registration of Mortgages for details on the exe - cution and registration process). Information regarding ship security interests is intended to be centralised in the Central Register of Movable Guarantees ( Central de Registo de Garantias Mobiliárias ) established under Law 11/21 and Presidential Decree 114/21. This reg - ister aims to publicise all movable security interests, including those over ships, and serves as the basis for establishing registration priority. However, it is important to note that the Central Register of Movable 2. Ship Finance and Leasing 2.1 Ship Loan Finance
Guarantees has not yet been fully implemented. As part of Angola’s modernisation of the movable secu - rity regime, extrajudicial enforcement (appropriation or direct sale) is permitted if expressly agreed by the par - ties, providing an alternative to judicial enforcement. In addition to ship mortgages, lenders may seek a comprehensive, international-style security package, including assignments of insurances and material charters/earnings, in line with market practice. Per - fection and publicity for these ancillary securities are achieved pursuant to the movable guarantees frame - work, with registration required for ships and certain receivables. 2.2 Ship Leasing Angola’s ship finance industry remains nascent, with limited transaction volumes and no discernible shift towards leasing. Deals typically take the form of tra - ditional cross-border bank loans under international standards, anchored by Angolan-law ship mortgages. Leasing arrangements, including sale-and-leaseback structures, are not yet common, and many vessel acquisitions are state-led, primarily for public-service ferries and cargo operations. 3. Marine Casualties and Owners’ Liability 3.1 International Conventions: Pollution and Wreck Removal The following international conventions and domestic laws are enforceable in Angola. Pollution • The 1969 International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollu - tion Casualties, as amended in 1973 and 1991. • The 1973 International Convention for the Preven - tion of Pollution from Ships and Annexes I/II, III, IV and V. • The 1990 International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation. • The 1992 Protocol to amend the 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Dam - age.
17 CHAMBERS.COM
Page i Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199Powered by FlippingBook