Admiralty and Maritime Law Pdf 2022

Running head: ADMIRALTY LAW
ADMIRALTY LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
ADMIRALTY LAW
Question No. 1:
The legislators often face struggle while interpreting the meaning of the ship. This is
due to the constant change in the making of new commercial crafts like automatic water
vessels and floating storage regasification units (FSRU), inflatable banana rafts and
autonomous underwater vehicles. These all-new generation vehicles have afflicted the
maritime law. The idea of this study is to scrutinize different approaches that took different
cases dealing with ships and vessels and try to find out a universal list that includes those
crafts that can be considered as a ship.
The conflict in interpreting the term ‘ship’ is due to the confusion to demonstrate it
under the Common Law or Admiralty Law. Rule 3(a) of the COLREGS (the International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972) rule defined the term ‘vessel’ in most
arguable way which comprises of every kind of watercraft and seaplanes which can be used
or proficient of being used as a mean of carriage on water1. The terms used and capable of
being used denotes the broader approach adopted by the judiciary while interpreting shipment
cases. The International Convention On Liability And Compensation for Damage in contrast
with the Deportment of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS 1996) employs the
word ‘any type whatsoever’ while elaborating the definition of the term ‘ship’2. In the Wreck
Removal Convention 2007, further includes air-cushion vehicles and submersibles in the
definition of ‘ship’3. The term ship as per the Wreck Removal Convention 2007 means and
includes any kind of seagoing vessels and also includes air-cushion vehicles, hydrofoil boats,
floating crat, submersibles, and floating platforms. However, these platforms are not to be
1 Nguyen, ManhCuong, and ShuFang Zhang. "Vietnam waterway transportation research and recommendation
of ARPA and AIS used in collisions avoidance." 2016 International Conference on Engineering and Advanced
Technology (ICEAT 2016). Atlantis Press, 2016.
2 Adascalitei, Oana. "OVERVIEW ON INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON LIABILITY AND
COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE IN CONNECTION WITH THE CARRIAGE OF HAZARDOUS AND
NOXIOUS SUBSTANCES BY SEA (HNS) 1996." Constanta Maritime University Annals 27.223 (2019).
3 Saharuddin, Ahmad Zawawi. "The implementation challenge of Nairobi Wreck Removal Convention and the
related analysis within the existing Malaysian national law." (2019).

2
ADMIRALTY LAW
considered as a ship when they are involved in the survey, exploitation, and production of
any sea bottom mineral resources. However, the International Convention on Civil Liability
for Oil Pollution Damage, 19694 restrict the description of a ship and states that a ship can
only mean and include those platforms that are engaged in the carrying of a proportionate
amount of persistent oil as cargo. Under Article 1(1) of the convention, the charter states that
ship means and includes any type of seagoing vessel and sea-borne craft engaged in carrying
the bulk of oil as cargo. The Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) 20065, provides another
restricted definition of the term 'ship'. It states that ship means and includes every platform
except those that navigate exclusively in or within inland water or end-to-end sheltered water.
Article II (4) of The Maritime Labour Convention 2006, provides that this definition relates
all publicly and privately owned ships involved in commercial actions if not otherwise
provided. However, this definition does not include ships engaged in fishing or similar
business and also does not include ships such as dhows or junks, ships use for war purpose or
naval auxiliaries. However, Section 313 of the English Merchant Shipping Act 1995, defines
ship in a problematic way whose origin is rooted in the obsoleted Merchant Shipping statutes.
The present statute elaborates ‘ship’ without denoting vessel and states that a ‘ship’ contains
every kind of vessel used in navigation. The earlier definition of ship and vessel under section
742 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 stated a ‘vessel’ contains any ship, boat or any other
vessels that are used in navigation and ‘ship’ comprises of every that vessel use for
navigation not boosted by oars. However, the term ‘ship’ may include boat containing oars
but subject to exceptions6. In the case of Curtis Vs. Wild7, the craft in issue was a lark dinghy
used for a Belmont reservoir. The court put their focus on the water stating that a lark dinghy
4 Bergesen, Helge Ole, Georg Parmann, and Oystein B. Thommessen. "International Convention on Civil
Liability for Oil Polluthtion Damage 1969 (1969 CLC)." Year Book of International Co-operation on
Environment and Development. Routledge, 2018. 104-105.
5 Fotteler, Marina Liselotte, Olaf Chresten Jensen, and Despena Andrioti. "Seafarers’ views on the
impact of the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 on their living and working conditions: results from a
pilot study." International maritime health 69.4 (2018): 257-263.
6 Ex parte Ferguson and Hutchinson (1871) LR 6 QB 280
7 Curtis Vs. Wild 8[1991] 4 All ER 172,

3
ADMIRALTY LAW
can be used as a craft that to be used for navigation but it cannot be used in the Belmont
reservoir. The court further added that the reservoir in issue can not be considered as waters
that can be navigated according to the reflected sense of the authority. In the cases of
determining vessels and ship navigation is an important factor. The term’used in navigation’
denotes navigation in navigable waters. However, if navigation takes place within fenced
water, it will not attract the requisites of navigable waters. In the case of Southport
Corporation v. Morriss8, the defendant discharged 400 tons of oil from his oil tanker due to
heavy load on the ship that might have caused the risk of downing to the ship and life risk to
the crew. The discharged oil impacted the foreshore belonged to the plaintiff and caused
damages. The court held the defendant responsible for public nuisance and negligence as the
discharge does not include the use of land but it invoves the use of a ship. The court further
held that a small artificial lake does not fall under the navigable water criteria. In another
case of, Weeks v. Ross9, the court held that a non-compounded canal communicated via locks
to the sea where ships are usually come and go can be considered as navigable water. The
court in this case further held that it does not matter whether the vessel in issue did not
proceed to the sea and it does not nullify the water to be considered as navigable water. In
Steedman v Scofield10, the court held that the movement of a platform or water transports in
the water does not constitute navigation. The court further held that, though jet ski in dispute,
in this case, is navigable it cannot be considered as a vessel used for navigation. In another
case of R V. Goodwin11, the court excluded the category of jet ski from the definition of ships
and vessel and held that the word 'used in navigation' does not cover those ships and vessel or
those platforms that do not use for going anywhere and simply use as an object for having fun
in the water. In the Athen’s convention, the admiralty registered while giving his opinion
8 Southport Corporation v Esso Petroleum [1954] 3 WLR 200
9 Weeks v. Ross 232 U.S. 383 (1914)
10 Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 163
11 R V. Goodwin [2005] EWCA Crim