Hague and Visby Rules - Essay Example

?Law s By Hague/Visby Rules Straight bill of lading under the Hague/Visby Rules Ji MacWilliam Co. Inc. vMediterranean Shipping Co. SA, The Rafaela S. [2003] EWCA civ 556. Plaintiff: Ji MacWilliam Co. Inc. Defendant: Mediterranean Shipping Co. SA, The Rafaela, S. Facts: A shipment of printing equipment was shipped to the Plaintiff in the US from an English destination. The shipment was damaged in transit abroad the defendant’s ship. A bill of lading had not been used and the parties had agreed that the transaction would be regarded as subject to a straight bill of lading identical to a form used previously. The resulting document was described on its face as a bill of lading and consisted of three documents. The form was partially consistent with a traditional bill of lading, but was essentially a straight bill of lading. In an action for damages for the printing equipment, the plaintiff sought to rely on the Hague/Visy Rules. Outcome: In the hearing of first instance, an arbitral panel ruled that since the agreement for shipment was concluded by virtue of a straight bill of lading, the Hague Visby Rules were inapplicable. This decision was upheld the Commercial Court upon appeal. The Commercial Court ruled that the straight bill of lading was not within the parameters of Article 1(b) of the Hague/Visby Rules. The Court of Appeal reversed the Commercial Courts ruling and the defendant appealed to the House of Lords. In a unanimous decision, the House of Lords confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. The House of Lords ruled that, at the time of drafting and implementing the Hague/Visby Rules, straight bills of lading were in widespread use among carriers and consignees. Had the drafters of the Hague/Visby Rules intended to exclude the Rules applicability to straight bills of lading, it would have specifically said so. Moreover, the document in question was described on its face as a bill of lading and had many of the characteristics of a traditional bill of lading. The court would not permit the parties to describe the document as a bill of lading and then seek to avoid liability on the grounds that the document was technically something else. Importance of the Case: The case essentially validated the expansive intention of Article 1(b) of the Hague Visby Rules. In this regard, a straight bill of lading was covered by the Rules if it was either a bill of lading or some other document of title revealing the rights and duties of the parties. Commentary on the Case: Schmitz argues that the straight bill of lading is usually rejected as a formal bill of lading because it is usually non-transferrable. However, the House of Lords ruling in the Rafaela demonstrates the need for flexibility as technological advancements have changed the character and form of traditional bills of lading and it is now necessary to analyse content as opposed to form to determine whether or not a document can be regarded as a bill of lading or a similar document of title.1 Dockray also argues that the Raefela also cleared up “longstanding doubts” that a straight bill of lading was a bill of lading under the Hague/Visby Rules.2 The meaning of Seaworthiness pursuant to Article 3(1) Hague/Visby Rules Actis Co. Ltd. v Sanko Steamship Co. Ltd. (The Aquacharm) [1982] 1 WLR 119. Plaintiff: Actis Co. Ltd. Defendant: Sanko Steamship Co. Ltd. (The Aquacharm) Facts: In 1971, the defendant deployed the Sanko on a time charter to transport a shipment of coal to Japan from the US. The charterers required that the ship be loaded to the draught which was permitted by the Panama Canal Company. The ship’s master permitted 43,000 tonnes of coal but failed to take into account the fact that the ship’s bow had a tendency to lean when passing out of salt water into fresh water during its journey through the Panama Canal while transporting the coal. As a result, the plaintiff’s cargo was delivered later than the time stipulated for delivery. Therefore the plaintiff sought damages for expenses incurred as a result of the delay. Outcome: Lord Denning ruled that seaworthiness within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Hague/Visby Rules is not an extended term and will be interpreted by reference to its natural and ordinary meaning. In this regard, seaworthiness means that the crew and the master together with the ship are “fit to encounter the perils of the voyage” and also that the ship is fit “to carry the cargo safely on that voyage”.3 Just because it was necessary to lighten the ship’s load during its journey through the Panama Canal, does not render the ship unseaworthy or fit for purpose. Griffiths L.J. also ruled that the ship was fit for purpose and therefore seaworthy and that the delay was caused because of poor storage and not as a result of unseaworthiness. Importance of the Case: The case is important for drawing attention to the physical efficiency of the ship when determining whether or not a ship is seaworthy within the meaning of the Hague/Visby Rules. The case also ensures that decisions unrelated to navigation and maintenance of the ship are not considered when ascertaining whether or not the crew or the master are unfit within the meaning of seaworthiness. Commentary on the Case: According to Derrington, The Aquacharm reinforces the idea that not every loss incurred at sea is recoverable and not every mishap can be interpreted as due to unseaworthiness.4 The duty to provide a seaworthy ship/due diligence and the ship’s crew Maxine Footwear Co. Ltd. v Canadian Government Merchant Marine Ltd. [1959] AC 589 Plaintiff: Maxine Footwear Co. Ltd. Defendant: Canadian Government Merchant Marine Ltd. Facts: The plaintiff’s shipped goods via the defendant as carriers under contract for the carriage of goods under Canadian Water Carriage of Goods Act 1936 which implemented the Hague/Visby Rules. The thawing of ice under the authority of the master negligently started a fire which spread. In putting the fire out, the plaintiff’s goods were lost. In the plaintiff’s claim for damages for non-delivery of the goods, the defendant claimed that the ship was seaworthy and that the defendant had used due diligence in ensuring the seaworthiness of the ship. As a result, the defendant claimed to have immunity pursuant to Article 4(1)&(2)(a) & (b) of the Rules. Outcome: The duty to exercise due diligence to ensure the seaworthiness of the shop at prior to and at the start of the journey under Article 3(1) of the Rules was continuous and covered the entire period from the time of loading until the vessel sank. Since the defendant was negligent during that time, the ship became unseaworthy. Therefore the defendant’s failed to exercise due diligence. The duty of due diligence in Article 3(1) is an overriding duty and since the defendant’s failed to exercise due diligence which ultimately caused the plaintiff’s loss, there was no immunity. Importance of the case: This case is important for clarifying that the duty of due diligence is not satisfied by merely ensuring that the ship is seaworthy prior to leaving a port. The duty continues once the ship leaves the port and this duty includes a responsibility to act with reasonable care and skill in navigating and maintaining the ship. Commentary on the Case: Margetson noted that the Maxine Footwear case emphasizes that the duty of due diligence is a non-delegable duty. As such, carriers cannot escape liability for negligence on the part of servants and/or agents. In the event crew members act negligently and the ship becomes unseaworthy as a result, the carrier is liable for any damages resulting from the ship’s unseaworthiness.5 Unseaworthiness and third party’s negligence/due diligence Riverstone Meat Co. Pty., Ltd. v. Lancashire Shipping Co., Ltd. [1961] AC 807. Plaintiff: Riverstone Meat Co. Pty., Ltd. Defendant: Lancashire Sipping Co. Ltd. Facts: Cargo transported pursuant to the Hague Visby Rules sustained sea water damage as a result of the ship’s unseaworthiness. The unseaworthiness was attributed to a fitter installed by a reputable ship reparation party. The plaintiff claimed damages on the grounds that the defendant had failed to exercise the requisite due diligence under Article 3(1) of the Hague Rules. Outcome: It was held that a thorough reading and interpretation of Article 3(1) of the Hague Rules indicate that the duty of due diligence requires that the due diligence be exercised in any work relating to the ship. The lack of due diligence on the part of the repair party was the defendant’s responsibility and thus the plaintiff would recover damages. Importance of the case: The obvious implications are that although a third party over which the ship owners have no control, fails to exercise due diligence, the ship owners remain liable for any resulting unseaworthiness. Commentary on the Case: Riverstone Meat clearly reinforces the point of law under Article 3(1) of the Rules, that the duty of due diligence is one of strict liability.6 The case also clarifies that under Article 3(1) of the Rules, due diligence carries with it vicarious liability on the part of ship owners.7 York Antwerp Rules Security for cargo under the York Antwerp Numbered Rules American Tobacco Company v Goulandris [1959] 173 F. Supp. 140. Plaintiff: American Tobacco Defendant: Goulandris Facts: The case was a consolidated action involving undefended and undisputable damages to cargo transhipped aboard the Ioannis P. Goulandris from Turkey and Greece through the Suez Canal and the Cape of Good Hope to three ports in the US. The ship had been forestalled and delayed as a result of a war between Italy and Greece. In addition, the ship encountered strong winds on the voyage and subsequently took in water and was docked for repairs. However, the repairs could not be carried out and the ship had to discharge some of the cargo while at sea. Sometime later the ship suffered fire damage and lost more of its cargo. Outcome: The ship owners were liable for failing to collect security. Cargo owners were required to contribute security upon request. Security would normally take the form of an insurance policy from an underwriter. Importance of the case: Cargo should be insured to ensure that cargo owners can recover damages in the event of unanticipated damages. Commentary on the Case: The case supports and restates the York Antwerp Rule that the ship owner is responsible for obtaining insurance for cargo and is entitled to collect contributions toward the policy from cargo owners.8 General Average Act under the York Antwerp Rules Australian Coastal Shipping Commission v Green and Others [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 16 Plaintiff: Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Defendant: Green and Others Facts: The Bulwarra, a ship encountered some difficulties when its moorings broke as a result of bad weather near a port in New South Wales. The ship owners hired a tug under the UK Standard Towage Conditions in which ship owners consented to compensate the owners of the tug for any damages arising out of the tug service. While towing the Bulwarra, the tug rope broke and damaged the tug boat’s propellers. The tug was total write-off and the tug owner claimed damages from the ship owners. Outcome: The contract for towing the Bulwarra was a general average act pursuant to Rule C of the York Antwerp Rules 1950. Therefore the damages and expenses resulting from the towage was a result of the general average act. Importance of the case: Any foreseeable risks to operations are general average acts and damages accruing as a result of general average acts may only be recovered as general average damages. Commentary on the case: Australian Coastal merely confirms an ancient rule of law that is captured by the general average rule in the York Antwerp Rules: parties make sacrifices to salvage cargo or a ship and in doing so both parties assume some of the risks involved.9 Reasonable Damages under the general average rule of the York Antwerp Rules The Mormacmar No. 133-67[1947] 75 F. Supp 520. The Plaintiff: The Mormacmar (ship owners). The Defendants: More-McCormack Lines, Inc. and War Shipping Administration Facts: Cargo was involuntarily stored at a warehouse in New Zealand and subsequently damaged in a fire. An action was brought against the ship owners for recovery. Outcome: The ship owners were trustees of the cargo stored. As such they had a duty to take out insurance for risks such as fires, floods and so on. Importance of the case: Ship owners will have to not only take out insurance on cargo, but will have to make inquiries as to what damages are covered and to seek contributions from the cargo owners. Commentary on the Case: Rather than limit liability where risks are reasonably taken, The Mormacmar appears to expand liability to mismanagement. Traditionally liability applies to errors relative to navigation and ship maintenance.10 Burden of Proof in substantiating a general average act claim under the York Antwerp Rules Damodar Bulk Carriers v People’s Ins[1990] 903 F.2d 675. Plaintiff: Damodar Bulk Carriers Defendant: People’s Insurance Company of China Facts: A fire broke out on the plaintiff ship. The initial suit was by the defendant for damages against the ship owner. The court at first instance ruled that the burden was on the cargo owners via the insurers to prove that a CO2 system would in all likelihood would have been a more effective method for putting the fire out. Since the insurer could not provide satisfactory proof, the court ruled against the cargo owners and allowed the ship owners’ counterclaim. The insurers appealed. Outcome: Pursuant to Rule E of the York Antwerp Rules, the onus is on the party claiming general average contributions that the damages is permitted as general average damages. Importance of the case: It is not enough to show that the damages resulted from a general average act, but also that the damages constitute general average acts. Commentary on the case: The ruling in Damodar can be seen as a means of interpreting the burden of proof clause in the York Antwerp Rules as a judicial technique for ensuring liability is linked to negligence or fault of some sort.11 Salvage Conventions The power to conclude a salvage contract, Article 6(2) The Salvage Convention 1989 Tsavliris Salvage (International) Limited v Grain Board of Iraq [2008] EWHC 612 Plaintiff: Tsavliris Salvage (International) Limited Defendant: Grain Board of Iraq Facts: In 2006, the m/v Altair was grounded on a journey from one port in Iraq to another Iraqi port. However, the ship was grounded in the waters of Kuwait. A number of attempts were made to unground the ship. However, it was the Tsvalris that eventually ungrounded the ship and a redelivery certificate was signed indicated that salvage was completed. The salvors and the ship owners concluded an agreement to settle the salvage claim. Arbitration proceedings were commenced against the cargo owners (the defendants) in London. The defendants argued that the arbitral panel did not have jurisdiction over it and that pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Salvage Convention only the master and the owner of the ship salvaged could sign off on the salvage agreement for the defendant. The arbitration panel did not agree and the defendant appealed to the Queen’s Bench Division. Outcome: It was held that the defendant had waived the right to claim state immunity when they agreed to arbitrate disputes by signing the Lloyd’s Standard Form of Salvage Agreement 2000 Edition. Moreover, by virtue of Article 6(2) of the Salvage Convention 1989, a salvage contract is binding when a servant or agent of the cargo owner signs the contract for salvage operations. Importance of the case: This ruling is consistent with the risk sharing objectives of the general average act under the York Antwerp Rules. Case Commentary: A key point in the Tsavliris Salvage is its interpretation of Article 6(2) of the Salvage Convention. This interpretation paves the way for a culture in which states may not appoint agents to represent their interests and then claim immunity from obligations to which their dully appointed agents bind them.12 Rewards for salvers under Article 13 of the London Convention 1989 The Owners of the Vessel “Ocean Crown” and Others v Five Oceans Salvage Consultants-The Ocean Crown,[2009] EWHC 3040. Plaintiff: The Owners of the Vessel “Ocean Crown” and Others Defendant: Five Oceans Salvage Consultants Facts: The Queen Ocean, laden with nearly 50, 000 tonnes of copper ran aground during a journey from Chile to India. An agreement between the salvage contracts and ship owners, cargo, bunkers, and stores. It was agreed that the salvage party would do their best to rescue the ship and its cargo and that compensation would be assigned via arbitration in London. Bibliography. The plaintiffs were not satisfied with the award and were granted leave to appeal. The award was considerably smaller than salvaged ship. Outcome: Although the value of the ship salvaged is an important factor to take into account, the high value of the ship will not arise to increase compensation for salvage operations if doing so would leave the salvage operators with an award in excess of the actual work done. Importance of the case: This case is important for ensuring that salvors do not receive unjust enrichment. Commentary on the case: The ruling in Crown Ocean is correct because if compensation was ascertained by reference to the value of the vessel salvaged, salvors can expect their compensation to be reduced in the event the salvage ship has deteriorated.13 Elements necessary for constituting a salvage service contract under Article 6 of the Salvage Convention 1989. The “Star Maria” [2002] EWHC 1423 Plaintiff: The Dauntless and the Doughty Defendant: The Star Maria Facts: The Star Maria collided with the Unden off the coast of Dover while carrying a cargo of steel from Grimsby to Gemik, Turkey. As a result of the collision, the Star Maria sustained damages and was grounded. The Star Maria requested a tug via the Coastguard who in turn instructed the Far Turbot to render assistance. In the meantime the Doughty owned by the Board proceeded to the Star Maria. On the way, the Doughty contacted the Star Maria offering to help and an agreement was made pursuant to Lloyd’s Standard Form of Salvage Agreement. However, in attempted to connect with the Star Maria with a rope, the Doughty’s propeller was damaged and it returned to Dover. Far Turbot arrived and another Lloyd’s Salvage form agreement was formed. Having connected with the Star Maria, the Far Turbot proceeded toward Dover but requested assistance from the Dauntless, Doughty’s sister tug. The Dauntless obliged and after much difficulty with high winds and turbulent seas the tugs successfully pulled the Star Maria into the harbour. The owners of the Doughty and the Dauntless claimed awards for salvage operations. Outcome: In order to constitute a salvage service contract the court must be satisfied that the tug in question faced danger that were not within the reasonable contemplation of the parties and the risks incurred by the tug or the tasks performed by the tug were not reasonably covered by the contract. Therefore, once the Far Turbot could not complete its salvage operations and the Dauntless provided assistance, the latter’s service became salvage services. At that point the Star Maria had become further endangered which could not have been reasonably contemplated. The Dauntless confronted risks and conducted duties which were not reasonably within the ordinary duties of tug steering. Importance of the case: The Star Maria was important for establishing guidelines for allowing awards to salvage operators who are not formally tied to a contract. Case Commentary: The Star Maria is an important decision in that it is consistent with the Salvage Convention’s recognition of the need to render assistance to distressed ships and at the same time remunerate those rendering aid in a fair and balanced way.14 Special damages under Article 14 of the Salvage Convention 1989 International Towing & Salvage, Inc. v The “Lindsey Jeanette” (USDC Middle District of Florida 1999) AMC 2465. Plaintiff: International Towing & Salvage, Inc. Defendant: The Lindsey Jeanette Facts: The defendant, a fishing vessel collided with a freighter and capsized. Responding to a request for aid by the Coast Guard Marine, the plaintiff arrived and upon assessment of the situation discovered significant damage to the defendant ship’s hull with oil leakage. The plaintiff stabilised the ship and the leak and essentially rescued the ship, towing it to safety. It was agreed that the plaintiff was entitled to an award for salvage operations. However, the amount of damages was disputed. The plaintiff sought special damages pursuant to Article 14 of the 1989 Convention. Outcome: The conditions for special damages under Article 14 of the Salvage Convention were met: there was a risk of environmental damages and the salved property’s value is lower than the cost of salvage. Importance of the case: The ruling in the case demonstrates that when salvage operations go beyond rescuing a distressed ship and in fact prevents environmental damages, putting the salvor to expense and saving the distressed ship significant damages, the salvor should be compensated accordingly. Commentary on the case: The Lindsey Jeanette is the only case decided in the US on the award of damages for salvage operations under the 1989 Convention since 1996 and therefore an important decision relative to special damages in international law.15 Arrest/Mareva The issue of writ and the statutory right in Rem in the UK The Indian Grace (No.2) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 Appellant: Republic of India and others Respondent: India Steamship Company Ltd. The Indian Grace owned by the respondent sailed from Sweden for India with the appellants’ munitions cargo. While on the journey, a fire broke out in one of the holds of the ship which was subsequently extinguished by the crew with water. The ship stopped to repackage the cargo in hold no. 3 and set off for India again arriving some time later. The appellant took out an action against the respondent for failure to deliver the full cargo. The appellant obtained a judgment and the respondent appealed. In the meantime, the appellant took out an action in rem in England against the respondent ship’s sister ship the Indian Endurance. The respondents relied on Section 34 of the Judgements Act 1982 which barred initiating proceedings in England and Wales when there was another action between the same parties in another jurisdiction. The judge at first instance agreed and the appellants appealed. Outcome: The House of Lords ruled that an action in rem commences against ship owners as soon as the writ is served or is regarded as served. As a result the parties are subject to the action in rem. Therefore, Section 34 of the Judgment Act bars the action in rem. Importance of the case: The case established that despite a tendency to regard an action in rem as separate and apart from a related action in personam, the action in rem is a continuation of the action in personam when the ship owners enter an appearance in both actions. Commentary on the case: The Indian Grace case moves the English courts away from the theory of procedure toward the theory of personification: the action in rem can be viewed as a continuation of an action in personam and an action in rem.16 Mareva Injunction/worldwide enforcement/disclosure of assets Vitol SA v Capri Marine Ltd. & Others [2010] EWHC 458. Plaintiff: Vito SA Defendant: Capri Marine Ltd. et al. Facts: the plaintiff took action against the defendant in England. Liability was not an issue as the defendant admitted to liability. The plaintiff obtained a worldwide mareva injunction. The only asset the defendant owned was a ship which had been sold. An order was made for disclosure relative to the proceeds of the sale of the ship. The plaintiff subsequently obtained a judgement in the US relative to a ship owned by a company which was allegedly owned by the defendant. The plaintiff obtained an ex parte order permitting it to use documents supplied by the defendant under disclosure orders obtained in England for use in the US proceedings. The defendant objected and applied to have the order vacated. Outcome: It was ruled that the order was just and convenient as the documents were necessary to determine whether or not the ship owned by two other companies were in fact assets to which the mareva injunction could be attached. Importance of the case: The case makes it difficult for parties against whom a mareva injunction is issued to hide assets or transfer assets outside of the reach of the injunction. Commentary on the case: According to Garnett, the Vitol case establishes that in order to enforce a foreign judgment, the laws of that state in which enforcement is sought will apply.17 Creation of the Mareva Injunction Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Karageorgis [1975] 1 WLR 1093 Plaintiff: Nippon Yusen Kaisha Defendant: Karageorgis Facts: The plaintiff who were ship owners entered into a contract with the defendants for a charterparty. The defendants failed to satisfy their obligations under the charterparty and could not be found. However, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants had money in a bank in London. The plaintiff sought an injunction preventing the defendant’s transferring those funds outside of the jurisdiction. Outcome: Although a freezing order was unheard of prior to a judgment, Lord Denning considered that this was an appropriate case for issuing such an order. The authority for making such an order was found in Section 45 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 which permits the High Court to issue injunctions in all cases where it is deemed just and convenient. This case was appropriate for such an injunction because there was strong evidence of liability and if an injunction is not issued, it was highly likely that the defendants would remove their assets. Importance of the case: This case established a precedent for the grant of the mareva injunction prior to the disposal of a case. Commentary on the case: The Nippon ruling caught on and was subsequently followed in Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA [1980] 1 All ER 213 which gave the injunction its name.18 Mareva injunction, general power of attachment Siskina v Distos Compania Naviera, SA [1979] AC 210 Plaintiff: Siskina Defendant: Distos Companis Naviera Facts: The plaintiffs were owners of cargo to be delivered by the defendant who were ship owners. The ship owners failed to deliver the entire cargo and had diverted the ship and unlawfully utilized a lien on the cargo. The ship owners were known to have only one asset: a ship, the Siskina which had been lost. The only assets of the defendant ship owners was a pending insurance claim relative to the lost ship. The insurers were located in England and the plaintiffs wanted to ensure that the funds did not leave the jurisdiction before the matter could be litigated in Cyprus. The plaintiffs obtained a mareva injunction which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The matter was appealed to the House of Lords. Outcome: The Mareva Injunction was reversed on the grounds that the injunction did not confer upon the court a general attachment authority when the court had no other jurisdiction over the defendants outside of the plaintiff’s petition for a mareva injunction. Importance of the case: The court will not assume jurisdiction over a case for the purpose of issuing a mareva injunction. The court will have to have jurisdiction over the substantive case in order to issue a mareva injunction. Commentary on the case: This case was important because the House of Lords “did not challenge” the mareva injunction “in principle” and as such validated it.19 Bibliography Journal Articles Arness, Frank, F. ‘Error in Navigation or Management of Vessels: A Definitional Dilemma.’ (1972) 13 William and Mary Law Review, 638-652. Davies, Martin. ‘Whatever Happened to the Salvage Convention 1989?’ (2008) 29 Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 463-481. Lee, May. ‘Prejudgment Attachment in England: The Mareva Injunction.’ (1982) 5 Loy. L.A. Int’l and Comp. L. Rev., 143-157. Margetson, N.J. ‘Liability of the Carrier under the Hague (Visby) Rules for Cargo Damage Caused by Unseaworthiness of its Containers.’ (2007) 14 The Journal of International Maritime Law, 153-161. Schmitz, Torsten. ‘The Bill of Lading as a Document of Title.’ (2011) 10(3) Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, 255-280. Tetley, William, Q.C. ‘Interpretation and Construction of the Hague, Hague/Visby and Hamburg Rules.’ (2004) 10 Journal of International Maritime Law, 30-70. Williams, Jr., Dr. Walter, L. ‘The American Maritime Law of Fire Damage to Cargo: An Auto-Da-Fe For a Few Heresies.’ (Summer 1985) 26(4) William and Mary Law Review, 571-644. Witting, Christian. ‘Breach of the non-Delegable Duty: Defending Limited Strict Liability in Tort.’ (2006)29(3) University of New South Wales Law Journal, 33-60. Textbooks Dietrich, Joachim. Restitution: A New Perspective. (New South Wales: The Federation Press, 1998). Derrington, Dr. Sarah. ‘Charterparties,’ In W.D.White (Ed.) Australian Maritime Law. (New South Wales: The Federation Press, 2002, 2nd Edition) 121-160. Dockray, Martin. Cases and Materials on the Carriage of Goods by Sea. (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2004). Garnett, Richard. Substance and Procedure in Private International Law. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). Lorenzon, Filioppo and Coles, Richards. Law of Yachts and Yachting, (Oxon: Routledge, 2012). Myburgh, Paul. ‘Arresting the Right Ship: Procedural Theory, the in Personam Link and Conflict of Laws.’ In M. Davies (Ed.) Jurisdiction and Forum Selection in International Maritime Law: Essays in Honor of Robert Force, (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2005). Reeder, John. Brice on Maritime Law of Salvage. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2011). Rose, Francis, D. International Maritime and Commercial Law Yearbook: A Jurisdictional Review of International Maritime and Commercial Law. (Informa Professional: 2004). Zweig, K. and Drobnig, U. International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law. Vol. 12. (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1981). Cases Actis Co. Ltd. v Sanko Steamship Co. Ltd. (The Aquacharm) [1982] 1 WLR 119. American Tobacco Company v Goulandris [1959] 173 F. Supp. 140. Australian Coastal Shipping Commission v Green and Others [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 16. Damodar Bulk Carriers v People’s Ins[1990] 903 F.2d 675. International Towing & Salvage, Inc. v The “Lindsey Jeanette” (USDC Middle District of Florida 1999) AMC 2465. Ji MacWilliam Co. Inc. v Mediterranean Shipping Co. SA, The Rafaela S. [2003] EWCA civ 556. Maxine Footwear Co. Ltd. v Canadian Government Merchant Marine Ltd. [1959] AC 589. Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Karageorgis [1975] 1 WLR 1093. Riverstone Meat Co. Pty., Ltd. v. Lancashire Shipping Co., Ltd. [1961] AC 807. Siskina v Distos Compania Naviera, SA [1979] AC 210. The Indian Grace (No.2) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1. The Mormacmar No. 133-67[1947] 75 F. Supp 520. The Owners of the Vessel “Ocean Crown” and Others v Five Oceans Salvage Consultants-The Ocean Crown,[2009] EWHC 3040. The “Star Maria” [2002] EWHC 1423. Tsavliris Salvage (International) Limited v Grain Board of Iraq [2008] EWHC 612. Vitol SA v Capri Marine Ltd. & Others [2010] EWHC 458. Read More