On
26 May 2021, the Maltese Court of Appeal delivered a judgment in Mare
Blu Tuna Farm Limited v Dr Ann Fenech as special mandatory for the vessel MV
Coral Water.
In
2006, the MV Coral Water departed from Porto Torres, Sardinia for Tuzla, Turkey
and stopped at Malta to take bunkers. Shortly after taking bunkers and setting
sail – at night and in winds of five to six on the Beaufort scale – the
vessel's propeller got caught in the mooring ropes of an aquaculture zone
(which was not visible on the navigational chart that the master was using at
the time).
The
fish farm owners alleged that as a direct consequence of this collision, the
vessel had torn the netting around one of its tuna cages, causing approximately
207 gross tonnes of blue fin tuna to escape. The claimant alleged that this
amounted to a catastrophic loss of nearly €2 million on top of the claim for
physical damage suffered to the cage, which the owners quantified at
approximately €70,000.
The
owners commenced an action for damages and requested the court to declare that
the alleged loss had occurred as a result of gross recklessness and with the
knowledge that the incident was likely to occur. The first court dismissed the
claim on the ground that the claimant had failed to prove that the MV Coral
Water was solely responsible for the incident due to gross negligence and, at
the same time, had acted with the knowledge that an incident of this sort was
likely to occur.
The
plaintiff company appealed. In May 2021, the Court of Appeal determined that
the master's failure to use the appropriate charts amounted to gross negligence
on his part. The Court thus went on to partially overturn the first-instance
court's findings, determining that the claimant's first request was merited.
However,
in delivering its decision, the Court of Appeal found that this was largely a
"fictitious claim", dismissing the majority of the plaintiff's claim
and throwing out its €2 million claim for the alleged loss of tuna. The Court
relied upon the extensive evidence produced by the defendant vessel that proved
that at the time of the incident, the relevant tuna cage was in fact empty and
therefore no tuna could have been lost. Nonetheless, the Court ordered the
defendant vessel to pay the sum of €15,000 in damages caused, to replace the
damaged equipment and cover the cost of labor. The Court found that the
incident was caused due to negligent passage planning by the MV Coral Water's
captain.
Analysis – limitation of liability
In
this instance, the amount of damages awarded was minimal and did not trigger
the vessel's need to limit its liability. Accordingly, the Court made no
findings on the issue of limitation of liability. However, by accepting the
claimant's first request, the Court appears to have, perhaps inadvertently,
equated gross negligence with the requirements to break the limitation found
under article 4 of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime
Claims (LLMC). This gives rise to the question of if the damages awarded had
been greater, could the Court's finding of gross negligence have led to the
inability of the ship owner to limit its liability?
As
stated by Lord Denning in The Bramley Moore, the limitation of
liability "is not a matter of justice, it is a rule of public policy which
has its origin in history and its justification in convenience". It has
also been described as a concept whereby "the principle of limited
liability is that full indemnity, the natural rights of justice, shall be
abridged for political reasons".
Indeed,
limitation of liability provisions are:
expressly designed for the purpose of
encouraging shipping and affording protection to shipowners against bearing the
full impact of heavy and perhaps crippling pecuniary damage sustained by reason
of the negligent navigation of their ships on the part of their servants or
agents.
Malta
is a party to the LLMC, which was incorporated into Maltese legislation by
means of Schedule 4 into Subsidiary Legislation 234.16, entitled
"Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Regulations" (the
regulations).
Article
1 of the regulations defines which persons may be entitled to limit liability.
It refers to:
- ship owners – defined as "the owner,
charterer, manager and operator of a seagoing ship";
- salvors; and
- persons for whose act, neglect or default the
shipowner or salvor are responsible ("relevant persons").
Article
2 of the regulations states that a person entitled to limit liability may do so
in respect of:
- loss of life;
- personal injury; or
- loss resulting in damage to property that occurs
on board or in direct connection with the operation of the ship, and
consequential loss resulting therefrom.
The
regulations specify that the limit of liability for a claim arising on any
distinct occasion shall be calculated according to a sliding scale based on the
vessel's tonnage as measured in units of accounts, which is then converted into
a monetary figure by reference to special drawing rights, as established by the
International Monetary Fund.
However,
the right to limit liability is not absolute. Article 4 of the regulations,
which replicates ad verbatim the provisions of article 4 of the LLMC, reads as
follows:
A person liable shall not be entitled to
limit his liability if it is proved that the loss resulted from his personal
act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such loss, or recklessly
and with knowledge that such loss would probably result.
The
threshold to break limitation is necessarily a high one, as it would otherwise
defeat the purpose of such a limitation. The following elements must exist:
- a person liable;
- a personal act or omission by the liable person;
- a loss caused by the personal act or omission;
and
- an intent or recklessness by the liable person,
with the knowledge that the action would likely cause such loss.
Article
4 of the regulations refers to the persons who are entitled to limit liability
– namely, the relevant persons mentioned under article 1 of the regulations.
This would include persons for whose act, neglect or default the shipowner is
liable. Under article 347 of the Merchant Shipping Act, Chapter 234 of the Laws
of Malta, the shipowner is responsible "for any damages caused by acts or
omissions in the navigation or management of the ship". Thus, the act or
omission by a vessel's captain to conduct an adequate appraisal of a passage
plan could satisfy the first two criteria listed above.
With
respect to the third requirement, the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant's
allegations that it suffered a loss of €2 million as false. That said,
technically, the Court did conclude that a loss was caused by the incident,
albeit a minimal one of approximately €15,000. Thus, while the damages
sustained fell way short of any sum that would trigger the limitation of
liability, it could be argued that the third element of loss also existed.
It
is the fourth element, that the claimant would have had difficulty proving. In
the case of the MV Coral Water, no specific intent to cause the loss was ever
alleged. However, the claimants had accused the vessel of gross negligence, and
the Court of Appeal had agreed. However, the regulations provide for
recklessness with knowledge to cause such loss, rather than gross negligence –
are the ramifications the same?
Under
Maltese law, gross negligence is interpreted as being more than just negligence
on a higher degree. Maltese courts have held that "gross negligence"
is equivalent to culpa lata (ie, denoting an absence of any
degree of care and acting with reckless disregard to the safety or property of
another).
The
Maltese concept of gross negligence thus goes somewhat beyond the common law
concept of "recklessly", which:
connotes either carelessness or utter
heedlessness of consequences with the result that the perpetrator is deemed to
have considered neither the probability nor even the possibility of a likely
result.(4)
Nevertheless,
gross negligence should not in itself mean that there was specific knowledge to
cause a particular loss, as is required to break the right of limitation of
liability.
The
wording in article 4 of the regulations suggests that the right to limit
liability is barred only if the "the type of loss intended or envisaged by
the person liable is the actual loss suffered by the claimant".
It is arguable that gross negligence
alone is insufficient to break a ship owner's right to limitation under article
4 of the LLMC. It would be reasonable to argue that a Maltese court would need
to ascertain that the defendant not only acted or failed to act in a manner
that disregarded the consequences, or in a manner where it could be reasonable
to expect a particular type of damage to be suffered, but that said defendant
had specific knowledge that the actual damage that was suffered would occur. In
this case, the master did not know or realise that there was an aquaculture
zone in the vicinity. Therefore, it would seem unreasonable to argue that his
conduct could be said to satisfy the requirement of article 4 of the LLMC,
triggering the exclusion of the right to limit liability.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου