Analysis of International Maritime Law Case Study on Ship Liability

This assignment presents a comprehensive case study on international maritime law, specifically focusing on a shipping incident involving the M/s Limassol. The analysis delves into key issues such as the liability of the shipowner (Andromeda Shipping Company Ltd) for damages and injuries, the extent of this liability, and the liability of the tugboat 'Little Giant' based on UK standards and conditions. The study examines relevant international maritime laws, including conventions on the limitation of marine damage and shipowner liability, and applies them to the case. It investigates the actions of the pilot, the collision with a beacon, and the role of third-party negligence. The assignment references several case laws, including Belae v Markwarth shipping Company Ltd, People of Satawal ex rel Ramoloiluq v Mina Maru, Dai Wang Shenq v Japan Far Seas Purse Seine Fishing Association, Church of Tonga v Pacific Trading Ltd, and Pohnpej v MV Miyo, to determine liability for fuel oil loss, hull damage, and other related damages. The conclusion summarizes the legal issues, the liabilities of involved parties, and the applicability of maritime regulations, ultimately determining the financial responsibilities of the entities involved.

Running head: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW
International Maritime Law

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW 1
Introduction
International maritime law or the Admiralty law is a body that used to govern the issues of
private maritime. The maritime law consists of both domestic law and international law. The
domestic law consists of the activities that happen on the maritime. Whereas private
international law that governs the relationship between the ocean-going ships and private
parties. Maritime deals with the matters that include marine navigation, marine commerce,
marine salvaging, sailors, shipping and the transportation of goods and passengers by sea.
In the scenario given in a case study will be discussed according to international maritime
law. It will also be discussed the issues that have been risen in this case. The rule that will
apply in this case and applicability of the laws on these issues will be discussed. Based on
laws and its applicability it will be discussed that who is liable for the injuries and following
the causality that happened. In the case study the liability of owner will also be analysed and
what liability will arise to the owner will be discussed with the relevant case laws.
Issue
The issues that have been a rise in this case:
 Does the owner of M/s Limassol is liable for the damages and injuries?
 A how much extent does the M/s Limassol is liable for the damages and injuries?
 What is the liability of the tugboat little giant that provides assistance based on the
UK standards conditions?
Rule
The rule for reducing the conflict, therefore nations has drawn several international
conventions about the limitations of marine stability of damage. There has been a
convention on which there has been a limited liability of the owner of the on the on-going
ships. There have been various conventions has been for the liability of damage on the
maritime. The conflicts in the sea is arise due to various reasons and to reduce the risk it
becomes it is required a uniform law1.
According to the international maritime law, the owner of the vehicle will be liable for his or
her own actions. He has also liable for the tort liability for the actions of the captain of the
ship, sailors, crew, pilot, and any other person in the service of the ship. These actions have
1 Loannis Chapsos and James Malcolm "Maritime security in Indonesia: Towards a comprehensive
agenda?." (2017) 76 Marine Policy178-184.

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW 2
happened on the service or performance of his/her duties. The owner has a contractual
liability for the obligations of the captain that ensured that the contract has been concluded in
the limitation of the legal powers. In Belae v Markwarth shipping Company Ltd2 case, there
was a question who will bear the liability that has caused from the negligence of the pilot.
The owner is held liable because the act was done at the time of his service, therefore the
liability is of the owner of the company3.
The shipowner has the right to determine his liability if it has been proved that he is liable for
the damages to the claimant. However, the shipowner will not be held liable if the damages
have occurred through the salvation of the ship and the other damaged like nuclear damage
and the other damages that has occurred through the oil pollution and contamination by the
other materials.
The owner of the ship liability in the physical damage will be if the total tonnage of the ship is
below the 500 tones than it will be determined by the 600,000 EGP. However if the tonnage
exceeds the 500 tones than the liability will be increased by the 350 EGP per each exceeded
ton. The amount for the non-physical damaged that has been assigned from the incident will
be the one unit for the payment of the compensation for this incident. In People of Satawal
ex rel Ramoloiluq v Mina Maru4 case, the quantity of damage had been determined by the
Court in accordance with the law and determined by the value of the commodity,
replacement value and tourism value. Dai Wang Shenq v Japan Far Seas Purse Seine
Fishing Association5, the Court held in this case that collision of the two ships or with some
other objects of the sea has been caused due to negligence. There was no due care was
there and therefore the plaintiff will be held liable to pay the damages. It is also been said by
the Court that the damages paid by the defendant in the extent of damage that has been
caused6.
In Accordance with the English law where the liability for the personal injury will be $15 per
ton will occur. However, the liability can be waived if there is a contract between the parties.
There has been certainly in the maritime law the duty of care of the other ships has arisen
when the two neighbour ships collide. It has been established rule under a duty of care of a
neighbour ship. However, the burden of proof lies on the claimant who has applied for the
damages. The rule that has generally been followed is of the good seamanship that is
2 [1981] SHBC 10; [1980-1981] SILR 218 (23 October 1981)
3 Douglas Gates "International law adrift: forum shopping, forum rejection, and the future of maritime
dispute resolution." (2017) 18 Chi. J. Int'l L 287
4 No 3 [2001] FMSC 24: 10 FSM Intrm 337 (Yap 2001) (20 July 2001)
5 [2001] FMSC 65: 10 FSM Intrm 112 (Kos. 2001) (28 March 2001)
6 Aldo, Chircop, David Dzidzornu, and Chidi Oguamanam "Ocean law reform: A multi-level
comparative law analysis of Nigerian maritime zone legislation" (2016) 67 Marine Policy 60-75.

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW 3
usually in breach found to be of negligence. In Church of Tonga v Pacific Trading Ltd7 case,
there was the collusion between the two ships as it was pleaded by the plaintiff that due to
defendant had not shown due care as the engineer of the ship was not on his place when
the gear has jammed. Defendant refused the argument that jamming of gear cannot be
avoided by taking due care. The court held that plaintiff argument is not reasonable and
dismissed the case.
If there has been a case of third party negligence then person will not be held liable for the
third party acts.
In Pohnpej v MV Miyo8 case, in this case the third party has been held liable for the maritime
torts. In this, the court held due to the negligence of third party the defendant will not been
held liable for the negligence.
There are some municipal that helps the maritime law in providing the decision when the
ships either of the same country.
Firstly, the responsibility of the owners has been described based on the registry of the ships
under the municipal law.
Secondly, the municipal law will make the relationships simpler of the ship owner and the
loaner9.
Application
The applicability of the rule says that the owner of the ship will bear the liability of the
damage that has caused. In accordance with the maritime law, the owner of the ship will be
held liable for the acts of the pilot. In the case study, the pilot has given the order of hard to
starboard and therefore the liability will occur on the Andromeda Shipping Company Ltd.
Andromeda Shipping Company Ltd therefore liable to pay the damages to the Ore Imports
Ltd10.
The question rises is that at what extent the Andromeda Shipping Company Ltd is liable as
the rule suggests in the case Belae v Markwarth shipping Company Ltd that the owner will
be liable to pay the damages that has occurred from the pilot in his service and that also
depends upon the total damage that has happened. The damage that has occurred is of 250
7 [2002] TOSC 26; C 0259 1999
8 No 11 [1998] FMSC 10: 8 FSM Intrm 281
9 Ling Zhu and Wei pan "Application of research-informed teaching in the taught-postgraduate
education of maritime law" (2017) 54 (5) Innovations in education and teaching international 428-437
10 Brian Wilson "Human Rights and Maritime Law Enforcement" (2016) 52 Stan. J. Int'l L 243

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW 4
tonnes of fuel oil and underwater vessel suffers massive hull damage and the damage that
has caused to the ship and the owner of the ship and other minor damages.
Hence, the loss of 65,200 tonnes of fuel oil that belongs to the Ore Imports Ltd will be paid
by the Andromeda Shipping Company Ltd. In People of Satawal ex rel Ramoloiluq v Mina
Maru the damage has been determined in accordance with the laws. In accordance with the
maritime law, owner of the company is liable to pay damages if caused and it depends on
the quantity of damaged caused. The damage that has caused is above than 500 tones. The
rule says that the damage will be determined by the 60, 000 EGP but if it exceeds 500 tones
than the liability will be increased by 350 EGP of each exceeded ton11.
Little Giant has not shown care and diligence as in the case of Dai Wang Shenq v Japan Far
Seas Purse Seine Fishing Association the care has not been shown and it results into the
collision. The ship in this case study has collided with the beacon. Therefore Little Giant will
be liable for the due care and diligence.
It is also caused due to third-party mistake of Little Giant reduced its speed without notifying
the m/s Limassol of the intended manoeuvre. Therefore, the Little Giant has the liability for
the damaged caused to the ship and the damage caused by a beacon. The Little Giant
liability is to pay the damage in accordance with the case Church of Tonga v Pacific Trading
Ltd and Pohnpej v MV Miyo. The rule of the third person was applied in these both case and
therefore in this case study there has been the liability of the Little Giant. The Little Giant is
liable to the injuries as per the English law $ 15 per ton12. Other 250 tonnes of fuel oil will
also be the liability of the Little Giant. However it depends on the other contract policies and
insurance policies the damages may differ.
The laws also give rights to the Andromeda Shipping Company Ltd who is owner of the m/s
Limassol to determine his liability and therefore he has the right to determine the extent of
his liability in this case study. However, the owner cannot claim any other right because the
damage has occurred due to the collision and pilot gave the instructions to the hit the
starboard. Hence, the rule suggests that owner Andromeda Shipping Company Ltd has the
contractual liability for the obligations of the captain.
11 Steven Haines "The influence of law on maritime strategy" (2016) 17 Maritime law 239-260
12 Renisa Mawani "Law, settler colonialism, and “the Forgotten Space” of maritime worlds” (2016) 12
Annual Review of Law and Social Science 107-131

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW 5
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can say that there are many legal issues have arisen in the case and it has
been dealt with various laws of maritime and with some municipal laws. The owners’ liability
has been described in the case with the case laws and their liabilities have been defined in
the case. It can be concluded in this case that the owner of m/s Limassol Andromeda
Shipping Company Ltd is liable to pay the damages of 250 tonnes to the Ore Imports Ltd.
The owner will be liable for the act of the pilot. The act done by the pilot was in his service. In
conclusion it can say that the liability arise due to the negligence or by the collision of the two
neighbour ships the liability arise is of the owner. The third person liability has also been
applied in this case study. Although the owners have also been provided with, many rights
like those that he can evaluate the damaged caused to the claimant.

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW 6
Bibliography
Cases
Belae v Markwarth shipping Company Ltd [1981] SHBC 10; [1980-1981] SILR 218 (23
October 1981)
Church of Tonga v Pacific Trading Ltd [2002] TOSC 26; C 0259 1999
Dai Wang Shenq v Japan Far Seas Purse Seine Fishing Association [2001] FMSC 65: 10
FSM Intrm 112 (Kos. 2001) (28 March 2001),
Pohnpej v MV Miyo No 11 [1998] FMSC 10: 8 FSM Intrm 281
Satawal ex rel Ramoloiluq v Mina Maru No 3 [2001] FMSC 24: 10 FSM Intrm 337 (Yap
2001) (20 July 2001)
Journal/books/articles
Chapsos, Ioannis, and James Malcolm "Maritime security in Indonesia: Towards a
comprehensive agenda?" (2017) 76 Marine Policy 178-184
Chircop, Aldo, David Dzidzornu, and Chidi Oguamanam "Ocean law reform: A multi-level
comparative law analysis of Nigerian maritime zone legislation" (2016) 67 Marine Policy 60-
75
Gates, Douglas "International law adrift: forum shopping, forum rejection, and the future of
maritime dispute resolution." (2017) 18 Chi. J. Int'l L 287
Haines, Steven "The influence of law on maritime strategy" (2016) 17 Maritime law 239-260.
Mawani, Renisa "Law, settler colonialism, and “the Forgotten Space” of maritime worlds”
(2016) 12 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 107-131
Wilson, Brian "Human Rights and Maritime Law Enforcement" (2016) 52 Stan. J. Int'l L 243
Zhu, Ling, and Wei Pan "Application of research-informed teaching in the taught-
postgraduate education of maritime law" (2017) 54 (5) Innovations in education and teaching
international 428-437