Facts
On 7 August 2014 a ship (the Ms F) ran aground
in Vejle Fjord. The ship was owned by a shipping line (RR) and the shipmaster
was the sole owner of said shipping line. The Ms F was registered in Togo and
its international safety management was provided by Company XX.
Following the incident, the Ms F was detained by
the Danish navy, which took precautionary measures to avoid potential oil
pollution and refloated the vessel.
On 5 September 2014 the navy notified a
shipbroker (NN) that the navy reserved the right to issue claims against it
"as the registered owner of the ship", because NN was listed as the
Ms F's owner in the Lloyd's register.
On 2 March 2016 the navy demanded that NN pay DKr
80,660.60 for the precautionary measures that the navy had undertaken. NN
answered the claim by email on 7 March 2016 and informed the navy that the Ms
F's registered owner was in fact RR. The navy subsequently made a claim against
RR.
On 25 August 2016 NN informed the navy that the
Ms F had been sold and that it no longer represented RR. As a result, the navy
brought proceedings against NN before the Maritime and Commercial Court,
claiming payment for the precautionary measures that it had taken. During the
trial, employees of NN told the court that the shipbroker had been engaged in
shipbroking assignments and had been the Ms F's commercial manager. The
shipping line managed crew, insurance and class-related issues.
The navy claimed that NN was strictly liable
under Section 183 of the Merchant Shipping Act (which implements Article 3 of
the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage
2001) for the costs relating to the precautionary measures that the navy had
taken to avoid potential oil pollution damage. The navy argued that the parties
liable under the act were "the
shipowner, including the registered owner, shipping line, bareboat charterer,
manager or others, who manage the operation of the ship in the ship owner's
place". It
also pointed out that NN fell within the scope of this group of persons.
However, NN disputed this argument and claimed that as it had not been
responsible for ship's operation, the technical manager/operator was instead
liable for the costs.
The Maritime and Commercial Court ruled in favor
of NN. Referencing Section 183 of the Merchant Shipping Act, the court stated
as follows:
The provision implements the
Bunker Convention 2001, which in article 1, paragraph 3, and defines the liable
parties as "the owner, including the registered owner, bareboat charterer,
manager and operator of the ship". In accordance with the underlying
report, it follows from the legislative proposal to § 183 (4) of the Danish
Merchant Shipping Act that "… contrary to the provisions in chapter 10…
the bunkers regulation does not stipulate that only a single party is
responsible but the regulation works to include a number of parties as being
responsible. A common feature of this group of persons is that all parties are
responsible for the operation of the ship to a greater or lesser extent. In
that way they have a certain "Ownerlike" character cf. the special
explanatory memorandum to § 183, (4) in legislative proposal No. 44 of 24
February 2005, and page 17 in Sølovsudvalget's report No. 1451 of 2004. It is
also illustrated that the expression "manager or others, who manage the
operation of the ship in the ship's owner's place" is equate with the
terms "operator" and "manager" in the Bunker Convention.
As already stated, § 183 (4)
of the Danish Merchant Shipping Act concerns strict liability, and if the
occasion should arise, also a joint and several liability, for damage caused by
bunker oil. The Court finds that the applicable law shall be understood in such
a way that liability contemplates that one is attending to the technical
operation of the ship as specified in § 183 (4) and the mentioned preliminary
works. There is no legal basis for extending the strict liability for damages
caused by the technical operation of the ship to cover also the commercial
operation of the ship.
As NN had not participated in the Ms F's
technical operation, the court found that NN was not liable.
Comment
The International Convention on Civil Liability
for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage introduced a strict liability for bunker oil
pollution damage. Liability is incumbent on numerous persons involved with a
ship's operation. The Maritime and Commercial Court's decision establishes that
shipbrokers, chartering brokers and commercial managers that provide cargo,
commercial contracts or commercial agreements, but are not involved with a
ship's technical operation, may fall outside the scope of liable parties under
the convention.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου