IUU Fishing – Regulatory & Insurance Aspects

eventbright - fisheries

IUU fishing is a global problem that threatens ocean ecosystems and sustainable fisheries. Various public law measures have been taken by the international community and the European Union to combat IUU fishing, but while these efforts, combined with those of various NGOs, have yielded positive results, it is believed that the insurance market could play a more active role in the fight against IUU fishing.

The primary object of this Symposium is to raise awareness of IUU fishing among stakeholders within the London insurance market. To facilitate discussion and inspire engagement from attendees, case studies within the context of the legal and insurance perspective will be presented by experts in the field. 

Speakers and Chairpersons include:

  • Lasse Gustavsson (Senior Vice President and Executive Director, Ocean Europe, Madrid)
  • Associate Professor George Leloudas (IISTL, Swansea University, Swansea)
  • Dana Miller (Marine Scientist, Oceana Europe, Dublin)
  • Kjetil Saeter (Investigative Journalist, Oslo)
  • Professor Barış Soyer (IISTL, Swansea University, Swansea)
  • David Vajnai (Vice President, Marsh Global Marine Practice, London)

Registration and other details:

The Seminar will be held at the Hallam Conference Centre (44 Hallam Street, London, W1W 6JJ) starting at 13:30.

A reception will be held directly after the event from 17:00 – 18:00. 

Register HERE 

Participation is free but please note that places are limited.

English law and jurisdiction post-Brexit

Evidence has recently been given to the EU justice sub-committee of the House of Lords that Brexit may scare off foreign businessmen from choosing English law and jurisdiction in favour of the Netherlands, Germany or Singapore. Sir Oliver Heald, Justice Minister, has pooh-poohed the idea. We suspect that, even discounting political hype, Sir Oliver may well be correct. Provided that arrangements are made for mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments between the UK and EU – something in all parties’ interests, even if the preservation of the whole of Brussels I is not – it is difficult to see how Brexit will change anything.

Academics, the IISTL and others

One ooff-hire-coverf our objects at the IISTL in Swansea University is to bridge the gap between professors and practitioners. To our way of thinking, intellectual rigour is entirely consistent with practical utility. A nice example of this recently from Steamship Mutual, in the shape of an excellent guide to off-hire by John Weale, well-known either side of the tracks, both as Fednav executive at the sharp end of risk management and as a highly informative writer on charterparty law. Introduced by Sir Bernard Rix, whose imprimatur does not come easily, this comes highly recommended for anyone dealing with this, probably the most common source of charter disputes.

Weale, J. “Off-Hire: A Study” (Steamship Mutual; 2017)

Request a copy.

2017

 

best happy new year 2017 wallpapers

 

Happy New Year to all our followers on the first working day of 2017. We will continue to look closely at what matters in maritime and commercial law. Once the minor matter of Brexit is out of the way, there are at least three rather important Supreme Court decisions in the pipeline — on safe ports, combined dangers, and (vitally) the effect of joint names insurance on liability (The Ocean Victory [2015] EWCA Civ 16); on “per claim” limits in insurance (AIG v Woodman [2016] EWCA Civ 367); and on the right to recover more by way of commercial damages than the losses that appear on any balance sheet (the combined appeals in The New Flamenco [2015] EWCA 1299 and Swynson v Lowick Rose [2015] EWCA Civ 629). And much more. As ever, watch this space.

Notice of Lecture: Lord Clarke on Ethics

The Institute of International Shipping and Trade Law in the College of Law and Criminology at Swansea University has the pleasure of hosting a talk by Lord Clarke of the Supreme Court. 

 

When: Thursday 1st December 2016 from  6.30pm

Where: Richard Price Lecture Theatre, Richard Price Building, Swansea University

Speaker: Lord Clarke, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Subject: “Ethics”

 

This lecture is free of charge and open to the public.

Tea/coffee will be served prior to the lecture in the Foyer of Richard Price Building from 6.00pm onwards.

Non-payment of hire not breach of condition

As widely expected, the CA in Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co. Ltd. v Spar Shipping AS [2016] EWCA Civ 982 has upheld Popplewell J’s decision that failure to pay hire on the nail in a time charter is not a breach of condition. IISTL stalwart Simon Rainey QC was on the winning side (though not on this issue): the court relied on the Restatement of the English Law of Contract, an increasingly respected publication for which another IISTL man, Professor Andrew Tettenborn, was partly responsible. More detailed analysis will follow later.

Collecting containers from bankrupt shipowners: liens, security and life at the sharp end.

An excellent post from The Maritime Advocate (issue 667) describes some events following the arrest of the Hanjin California in Sydney. Reproduced below:

Hanjin Crisis – Welcome to the Hanjin California

Frazer Hunt of Mills Oakley in Sydney writes –

September 19 2016 –

As we enter the third week following Hanjin Shipping filing for receivership, let’s review how the various stakeholders handled the fallout following arrest of MV “Hanjin California” in Sydney and whether there are any lessons to be learned before further containers are discharged from MV “Hanjin Milano” which remains anchored off Melbourne awaiting advice from Korea.

“So I called up the Captain…”

“Hanjin California” was arrested by unpaid bunker suppliers earlier this month after it berthed at SICT. The terminal discharged some of the containers and since Hanjin would not be paying any of the charges, exercised a lien over the containers for the stevedoring costs and administration charges. Consignees who had already paid freight were also required to pay these charges to obtain release of their containers. Still, if you wanted your container….

Then it got a lot more complicated: to secure return of container to the depot, Hanjin also required a deposit, bond or a solicitors letter of undertaking that the deposit would be paid on demand.

For a short period, the terminal ALSO required security for the return of the container. Consignees were then faced with the dilemma that if they returned the container to Hanjin’s depot, they would lose their security to the terminal but if they returned the container to the terminal, then they would lose the security provided to Hanjin. Fortunately, common sense quickly prevailed and the terminal withdrew their parallel demand.

“What a nice surprise (what a nice surprise)… bring your alibis…”

THEN the port authority got in on the act and asked the consignees to pay the wharfage costs that would have otherwise been paid by the vessel.

“There were voices down the corridor, I thought I heard them say.. Welcome to the Hanjin California…”

OH, your container holds dangerous goods? While grappling with the delays associated with the procedures referred to above and getting Hanjin to answer the phone, you are then served with a notice from the port authority to remove the container and threatened with penalties if it is not removed immediately. The notice then continued “You are invited to present information on any difficulties encountered in complying with the permitted time periods on the terminal which may be taken into account by the port authority when making a determination for the above alleged offence”.

“Mirrors on the ceiling, the pink champagne on ice…”

OK, so you have finally paid the stevedoring charges, wharfage costs and provided security for the return of the container and then picked up the container having also paid multiple fees for missed slots. Great, you now have your goods BUT: Hanjin’s container depots refused to accept re-delivery of Hanjin containers, presumably fearing that they would never be collected. You are asked to hold onto the container until further notice, presumably without further container demurrage accruing….hopefully….

“…Plenty of room at the Hanjin California”

In one sense, the consignees who got their containers out of the terminal were lucky – you have to feel sorry for the owners of goods in the Hanjin containers which were bundled up at the terminal and loaded on “Hanjin California” which remains under arrest at Glebe Island terminal that does not have facilities to load and unload containers with no appearance from the owners of the vessel in the arrest proceedings at this stage. Consignees who wish to have their containers discharged from “Hanjin California” will have to wait or apply to court to have their containers unloaded. Whether the costs associated with moving the vessel again for that purpose will be economically viable is another matter.

“Relax,” said the night man, “we are programmed to receive.
you can check-out any time you like, but you can never leave!”

Meanwhile, the residents near Glebe Island Terminal are not happy – it is most inconvenient for them to have to pull the shades down on their windows.

Up ahead in the distance, I saw a shimmering light….

Seriously, you cannot make this stuff up!

Hopefully, the service providers at other ports will learn from our experience and that procedures for the release of the remaining Hanjin containers will be more streamlined and with less angst.

AND I was thinking to myself, “This could be Heaven or this could be Hell”

 

 

Safe berths, charters and occupiers’ liability in the US

An otherwise unremarkable, but bitterly fought, safe berth / occupiers’ liability case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania a few weeks ago. A tanker, the Athos I, was owned by Frescati, time-chartered to a tanker pool Star, and voyage-chartered by them to Citgo, an oil company, to carry a crude oil cargo from Venezuela to its own facility at Paulsboro, NJ (opposite Philadelphia). On the way in to the berth she hit an abandoned anchor, was holed, and oil escaped costing tens of millions to clean up. Could Frescati sue Citgo, the voyage (sub)charterers, for repair costs to the vessel (which actually they scrapped) plus the other costs incurred? Yes. The safe berth warranty was broken by Citgo. Interestingly the courts had earlier held that this enured to the benefit of Frescati, disponent owner under the time charter to Star, as a third-party beneficiary (In re Frescati Shipping Co Ltd, 718 F.3d 184, 200 (3d Cir. 2013): something lawyers in England might care to bear in mind, especially where a mesne charterer is bankrupt). In addition there was an occupiers’ liability claim against Citgo for negligence, which also succeeded, the court making it clear that there could be a pro-active duty to check for hidden hazards using things like sonar side-scans. Frescati recovered the clean-up costs they had paid, plus the repair costs, even though no repairs had in fact been done (the vessel having been scrapped); the latter point confirming that the rule as repair costs is much the same both sides of the Atlantic.

See In re Petition of Frescati Shipping Co Ltd, Civil Action Nos. 05-cv-305 (JHS), 08-cv-2898 (JHS), ED Pa, 25 July, 2016.

..