Wikborg Rein is a full service international law firm with over 230 lawyers. Headquartered in Oslo, the firm is particularly strong in shipping and offshore matters, dispute resolution, energy and natural resources, corporate, and banking and finance. Wikborg Rein is notable for its unique global network, with offices in Norway (Oslo and Bergen), London, Singapore and Shanghai. Extensive cooperation between these offices provides international clients with high quality advice in a series of key strategic jurisdictions.Show more
Shipping & Transport
The Baltic and International Maritime Council recently launched a revised version of its standard time charter party for offshore support vessels – the Supplytime. Considering the form's broad application in practice, the 2017 edition's amendments and new features are likely to have a significant impact on issues facing owners and charterers.
Keeping pace with the changing nature of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) sector, the traditional long-term LNG time charter market is evolving and charter periods are becoming shorter. The fixing of LNG carriers on shorter-term and more flexible contracts is a sign that the LNG industry is becoming much less rigid. It has resulted in owners and banks having to adjust their traditional approach to LNG ship financing and agreeing to more market exposure.
The Supreme Court recently handed down its judgment in New Flamenco (Globalia Business Travel SAU of Spain v Fulton Shipping Inc). In this long-awaited decision, the court considered whether a benefit obtained by the owners relating to the sale of the vessel following the charterers' repudiatory breach of a charter should be taken into account in assessing the damages that the owners were entitled to recover.
A recent Commercial Court decision held that a charterer is 100% responsible under the Inter-Club Agreement for damage to cargo arising from an order to the vessel to delay discharge until the receivers are able to pay for the cargo. Given that it is common for shipments to be delayed, more disputes relating to deliberately delaying discharge can be expected in the future.
The Supreme Court recently handed down a judgment addressing three issues of importance to shipowners, charterers and insurers alike, defining the parameters of the safe port undertakings, the rights of subrogation of insurers where vessels are operated under bareboat charter and the right of charterers to limit their liability under the Convention on the Limitation of Liability of Shipowners.
When a ship has reached the end of its life, the owners are faced with the decision of how to dispose of it in a manner that is both commercially viable and environmentally sustainable. The controversial practice of beaching vessels in less-developed countries has prompted initiatives to tighten regulations on the recycling of ships.
It has been a brutal few years in the shipping and offshore markets with overcapacity, declining demand and the dramatic fall in oil prices all contributing to historically low charter rates and plummeting asset values. While in recent years owners have been battening down the hatches in a bid to survive, consideration is now being given as to how and when to act in order to seize the opportunities that may present themselves during recovery.
The Supreme Court recently clarified a number of unsettled issues that will have an impact on other wreck removal cases, including whether vessel owners can use their right to limit liability as a defence against a wreck removal order. Among other things, the decision has clarified the highly disputed interpretation of the relationship between owners' duty to take action and their right to limit liability.
In a recent case, the Court of Appeal decided unequivocally that missing a single instalment of hire under a time charter is not a breach of condition. In other words, there is no right to terminate for one missed instalment and claim damages for loss of bargain – usually the difference between the charter and market rate for the remainder of the charter period. The court also set out useful guidance on what constitutes 'renunciation' (anticipatory repudiatory breach) of a time charter.
A year and a half after the entry into force of the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, the Ministry of Transport has completed a consultation process on a proposal to ratify the convention and implement it into Norwegian law. The ministry has suggested that the convention be implemented on a dual basis, alongside existing legislation.
Two recent London decisions involving shipping companies have highlighted problems that can be encountered when starting an arbitration. The first decision concerned an issue with identifying whether a non-signing counterparty is bound by the agreement containing the arbitration clause. The second decision concerned the question of which parties are authorised to accept service of arbitration notices.
Since arbitration requires agreement between the parties, a third party is not normally bound by, or entitled to invoke, an arbitration clause. However, there are exceptions to the rule. It is recommended, when drafting arbitration clauses, to take into account not only the position of the contractual parties, but also the position of possible third parties, since this may reduce or avoid the risk of difficult procedural questions that may arise if claims are later made by or against a third party.
The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments recently achieved the required number of signatories and will thus enter into force in September 2017. The convention is expected to have a significant impact on ships engaged in international trade, requiring them to manage their ballast water and sediments to certain minimum standards and install onboard ballast water management systems.
In 2015 the Association of Ship Brokers and Agents, the Baltic and International Maritime Council and the Singapore Maritime Foundation published a revision of the 2015 New York Produce Exchange (NYPE) form – 27 years after the 1993 revision was issued. NYPE 2015 is more extensive than its predecessors and provides far greater standardisation of commonly used clauses.
Difficult market conditions motivate cost savings wherever possible, which includes expenditure relating to the general maintenance of vessels. Following an increase in disputes concerning the condition of vessels at the time of redelivery under a bareboat charter, questions have arisen as to the charterers' duty of maintenance and what can be done to avoid disputes.
A recent Court of Appeal decision acknowledges the difficulties of laying down general principles of law in connection with an innocent party's obligation to mitigate its loss following a repudiatory breach of contract. The case arose in the context of assessing damages for early redelivery where there was no available market at the time of the breach against which to measure the loss.
The new 'SUPERMAN' agreement published by the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) governs the contractual relationship between third-party ship managers and shipowners for the provision of technical supervisory services during construction, repair and conversion projects. The agreement completes BIMCO's suite of 'cradle-to-grave' pro forma shipping agreements available to shipping professionals.
The Supreme Court has handed down judgment in the long-running OW Bunkers case. The decision is unlikely to be welcomed by owners, which now face the prospect of having to pay twice for bunkers: once to their immediate supplier, which may be insolvent, and again to the physical supplier of the bunkers.
Norway and Brazil signed a memorandum of understanding in November 2015 to enhance cooperation within the area of maritime transport. The memorandum is in line with the Norwegian government's long-term cooperation strategy for Brazil and is intended to increase both public and private sector cooperation and awareness to create mutual economic opportunities and promote investment.
A recent arbitration decision raises a number of interesting points in connection with lay-up agreements and how much can be claimed for continuing to provide services after the original contract has been terminated. It will be of interest to parties that see their unpaid charges increasing, as well as to other involuntary bailees, such as vessel owners left holding cargo with no bills of lading binding them after their charterers have ceased operations.
The civil law concept of force majeure is well established in Norwegian law, covering scenarios such as natural disasters, severe weather and war. It is recognised as both a statutory and contract term. However, although there is extensive practice and doctrine on force majeure clauses, a lack of clarity remains regarding what constitutes force majeure and what the effects of such situations are.
Unlike many civil law countries, there is no implied application of the doctrine of force majeure under English law. Rather, the treatment of an event of force majeure comes from the contract. It is usual for English courts to apply contracts strictly, according to their wording and respecting the parties' freedom to contract on terms they see fit.
In a potentially problematic decision, the Court of Appeal recently upheld a High Court judgment that a contract to supply bunkers on credit terms, with a retention of title clause in favour of the sellers until full payment but with permission to consume the bunkers (or some of them) before payment was due, was not a contract for the sale of goods under the Sale of Goods Act.
As the Norwegian aquaculture industry continues to grow, so does demand for well boats. These sophisticated vessels not only transport fish, but also undertake complex tasks such as delousing and sorting fish. Damage to or loss of the fish handled by these vessels can result in substantial losses. Therefore, owners and charterers of well boats should regulate the risks associated with such services in their charterparties.
In a dry bulk market where a charterer is not paying freight or hire, its counterparty is often left to consider whether it can lien the cargo on board the chartered vessel to obtain payment. When it comes to liening cargo under a Congenbill, English law will look first to the head voyage charterparty as the source of relevant terms to be incorporated into the Congenbill, unless another charter is expressly identified. This can lead to a less-than-obvious outcome.
Owners continue to face uncertainty when charterers fail to pay hire under a time charterparty, particularly in respect of when they can withdraw the vessel or terminate and claim damages for future loss of hire. However, these uncertainties can be managed by including appropriate terms in the charterparty and by a careful and well-advised approach when charterers do fail to pay.
Historically, cruise ships calling at Norwegian ports have not been allowed to be registered in the Norwegian International Ship Register. However, a recent change to the Norwegian International Ship Register Regulations has relaxed the trading limits and now allows such ships to be registered in the register if certain requirements are fulfilled.
A shipowner's bid to avoid the risk of paying twice for bunkers supplied has been thwarted by a recent High Court decision, which held that a contract for the supply of bunkers is not a sale contract falling within the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The decision is important since, as the court recognised, the contract terms in this case are "typical of hundreds or even thousands of such transactions carried out every year".
If a time charterer redelivers a vessel before the end of the agreed charter period, the owner is faced with the choice of either accepting redelivery and claiming damages or maintaining the charterparty and continuing to claim hire. This decision has both commercial and legal implications. The owner's dilemma remains the same under a bareboat charterparty as under a time charterparty.
The general rule regarding set-off under Norwegian law is that a party which disputes a declaration of set-off must initiate legal proceedings in order to establish that there is no basis for set-off and that its claim shall be paid in full. But what happens in a case where the two claims are subject to different limitation periods – such as cargo claims and freight claims?
Amendments to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims recently entered into force, significantly increasing the limits of shipowners' liability. The Norwegian Parliament has passed legislation to implement the new limits, so the increased limits now apply in all cases where the limitation of liability is invoked for property claims or claims for loss of life or personal injury before a Norwegian court.
In recent years there has been a decrease in the number of vessels registered in the Norwegian International Ship Register due to strong competition from other registries. The government-appointed Trading Limit Committee has now proposed significant changes in order to make it more attractive for owners to register their vessels in the Norwegian International Ship Register.
In a recent Court of Appeal decision a reference in a bill of lading to an arbitration clause in the underlying voyage charterparty was understood to incorporate the dispute resolution clause in the charterparty which provided for high court jurisdiction. The decision demonstrates that all parties to bill of lading contracts must be conscious of the fact that the words printed on the bill may not provide the whole story.
The government recently proposed that the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea 1996 be ratified and the Maritime Code be amended accordingly. The convention's liability and compensation regime will cover not only pollution damage from hazardous and noxious substances carried by ships, but also the risks of fire and explosion.
In a volatile market, many owners face the difficult challenge of having a vessel redelivered early under a profitable charter. Early redelivery may arise where a charterer is no longer willing or able to perform the charter or where, faced with non-payment of hire, the owner decides that it has no choice but to withdraw the vessel and terminate the charter.
There has been uncertainty in terms of the interpretation of Clause 13 of the Norwegian Saleform and, in particular, as to the extent of amounts recoverable where a buyer has failed to pay the deposit in accordance with Clause 2. In Griffon Shipping LLC v Firodi Shipping Ltd the Court of Appeal provided guidance on this point, holding that Clause 13 does not exclude a seller's right to claim the deposit as a debt.
The Maritime Code states that a maritime lien becomes time barred one year from the date when the secured claim arose, unless the vessel is arrested and the arrest leads to a forced sale. A recent Supreme Court decision shed light on the level of activity that is required from a creditor after an arrest has been secured in order to maintain a maritime lien.
Cargo damage is sometimes caused by the packaging of the cargo being insufficient to prevent damage to the cargo during transportation. Whether the carrier is liable for such damage depends on the nature of the packaging and the care which is reasonably required to be exercised by the carrier.
A non-resident company that participates in business being carried out in, or managed from, Norway will be liable to pay tax. However, an exemption to this rule exists. The exemption results in non-Norwegian shipowners not being liable to tax in Norway on shipping income – even if the shipping business is managed from Norway – provided that certain conditions are met.
A financing bank will usually secure a loan by obtaining a mortgage for a vessel and seek to protect its interests in the mortgaged vessel by way of insurance. The bank has several options to ensure that its interests are protected by insurance, depending on the conditions under which the owner's insurances are placed, the degree of risk that is acceptable and the costs of taking out various insurance covers.
A recent study of case law confirms that courts will place significant weight on evidence arising from or collected in the immediate aftermath of an incident. Parties facing a potential dispute should take care to collect all relevant documentary evidence and be cautious when issuing preliminary reports or other documents until all relevant facts are identified.
Norway has now implemented EU Directive 2009/20/EC, which obliges shipowners to take out liability insurance for all claims covered by the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1996. Vessels are required to carry onboard a certificate as proof of insurance. The directive has been implemented in the Norwegian Maritime Code 1994.
In Norway, as in most other jurisdictions, there are separate rules governing the time bar of maritime claims. It is crucial not only to be aware of these rules and the claims to which they apply, but also to keep in mind that the general time-bar rules may supplement the special maritime rules.
The Commercial Court has handed down its judgment in Ocean Victory. The case concerned a safe port warranty and total loss, but it also addressed whether the insurer – as the assignee of the co-assured demise charterer – was entitled to claim indemnity from time charterers for the demise charterer's liability towards the co-assured head owners in respect of their breach of the safe port warranty.
The Borgarting Court of Appeal recently considered the applicable time bar for claims for damages caused by delay of goods carried by sea. The court held that claims for delay are subject to the same limitation period as claims for damage to or loss of the goods, and consequently are time barred one year after the cargo has been or should have been delivered.
In the existing financial climate, there is an emerging trend for yards to provide their buyers with a new form of sellers' credit – by participating with equity in the project companies that are ordering newbuilds. The choice of corporate entity and its jurisdiction can have both favourable and detrimental tax consequences for the different participants.
It is becoming increasingly common for charterers to place their own specific equipment on board the vessels that they charter. For example, in the offshore sector, seismic and pipe-laying equipment is often owned by charterers. As this kind of equipment is valuable, it is important for charterers to protect their legal rights to the equipment.
Life as a shipowner is seldom easy. In addition to the commercial challenges that owners face on a daily basis, time must be given to reading law reports to ensure that benefits are gained and warnings heeded from the misfortunes of those who find themselves embroiled in the legal system - particularly when economic conditions demand strict enforcement of legal rights. Three recent decisions may be of particular interest.
Where a seller grants a buyer the right to defer payment of part of the purchase price, the seller is in effect giving the buyer a credit for the part of the purchase price which is deferred. Seller's credit is commonly used in the sale of goods in shipping and offshore construction contracts. Although versatile and functional, the use of seller's credit may give rise to legal challenges which are best addressed at an early stage.
The Nordic Marine Insurance Plan 2013 recently entered into force. While the plan is largely based on its predecessor, some important changes have been introduced. These amendments will better facilitate use of the plan in other Nordic countries, as well as in the international market. The plan will no doubt provide greater certainty to both insurers and assureds as to the extent of insurance cover.
In 2012 Norway and Poland ratified an amendment protocol to the Polish-Norwegian Tax Treaty 2010, which aimed to restore former tax exemptions for Polish workers on Norwegian ships. The Norwegian shipping market has shown little enthusiasm for the change, as there appears to have been limited take-up of the restored tax exemptions. As the amended protocol will not become effective until 2014, its impact remains to be seen.
In a recent case a Singaporean shipbroker commenced proceedings in Norway against a Norwegian shipowner. Singapore is not a party to the Lugano Convention, which regulates questions of jurisdiction and enforcement in international disputes. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the convention applies where the claimant is domiciled in a non-member state. The outcome is surprising and warrants attention.
Whether the 1993 Norwegian sale form excludes terms as to satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose, which are implied in contracts of sale by the Sale of Goods Act, has always been the subject of speculation. A recent decision has put this debate to rest, holding that such terms are to be implied unless expressly excluded. This ruling has implications for the terms agreed for the sale and purchase of second-hand vessels.
In Norway, a pilot is considered the servant of a shipowner, and the shipowner is held responsible for any loss or damage arising as a result of the pilot's negligence. Notwithstanding this general principle, some grey areas exist where the rationale for holding the shipowner responsible can be called into question. A recent court decision concerning state liability for pilotage failed to provide certainty in this area.
When a party commits a breach of contract entitling the other party to terminate, the innocent party should not delay in exercising its rights. To do so may raise difficult questions as to whether the right has been waived and whether the late exercise of a right to terminate itself amounts to a repudiatory breach. A recent decision in a case involving a shipbuilding contract highlights that time may be an important consideration before the right to terminate arises.
In Norsk Tillitsmann ASA v Silvercoin Industries AS the Supreme Court dealt with the distinction between an ordinary guarantee triggered by the principal debtor's default and an on-demand guarantee. The Supreme Court confirmed the long-held view that the guarantor's liability is triggered by the principal debtor's default, unless there is a reasonably clear basis for a different interpretation.
The English courts have delivered a decision on guarantees and the all-important distinction under English law between guarantees and indemnities or on-demand bonds. The courts have repeatedly attempted to explain the distinction between these two forms of security. In a recent decision the Court of Appeal attempted a more simple solution by seeking to cut – or perhaps unravel – this Gordian knot.
Ensuring that adequate insurance is in place is essential for a vessel under construction as the losses can be substantial if a peril strikes. Shipbuilding contracts will invariably address which of the parties is required to take out insurance cover, and will often specify the standard insurance terms to be used.
The Norwegian tonnage tax regime stands out as one of the most favourable and competitive in the world today. It provides a stable and attractive option for ship owners and operators. Their growing confidence is demonstrated by the fact that the Norwegian tonnage tax regime currently has more vessels registered than any other regime.
Some international ship registries do not require ship mortgages to specify the amount being secured by the underlying obligations. However, in Norway, a ship mortgage is required not only to identify the property to be mortgaged, but also to specify the maximum amount which is secured under the mortgage. Is a foreign-registered mortgage, without a specified amount for security, enforceable under Norwegian law?
The Supreme Court recently rendered a decision that may increase shipowners' liability where claims are made by cargo interests based on the master's nautical errors during the voyage, by limiting owners' right to rely on the nautical faults exception in the Maritime Code.
A guarantee designed to provide security for the performance of the obligations of a debtor sometimes turns out to be far from secure. Where the nature and extent of a guarantee is ambiguous, courts are often called on to determine the scope and validity of the security. What seems simple and straightforward when these guarantees are negotiated can become less so when it comes to enforcement against a resistant guarantor.
The Baltic and International Maritime Council recently issued an updated version of the sale form - the standard contract most commonly used for the sale and purchase of second-hand vessels. The changes include new definitions, a rearranged layout of Clauses 5 and 6, new trigger provisions for payment of a deposit and a new provision permitting delivery against a price reduction when the diver's inspection reveals damage.
To meet the increasing threat from pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean, Norway has adopted new rules applicable to Norwegian registered ships and drilling units. The rules set out when force can be used in self defence, and allow the use of armed guards and firearms on board ships and units when they are operating in certain geographic areas.
The Agder Appeal Court has delivered its final judgment in the criminal case following the grounding of the Full City off Langesund in 2009. The court acquitted the third officer and reduced the master's sentence to six months' suspended imprisonment. The judgment showed a far greater understanding of the maritime industry as compared with the earlier district court judgment.
The Ministry of Trade and Industry has proposed amendments to the Maritime Code regarding casualty investigations. Changes include an increased investigative duty for the Accident Investigation Board, a duty to secure evidence after an accident for anyone involved and a 12-month time limit for issuing casualty reports.
The Supreme Court recently ruled in favour of the buyers of six Korean newbuildings, Rainy Sky SA and five other entities, reversing the Court of Appeal's decision which rejected their claim under refund guarantees. The decision represents a victory for commercial common sense over the strict legal interpretation of the language used in guarantees.
The procedure for enforcement of a ship mortgage under English law is based on a contractual right. Thus, the rights of a mortgagee are derived from specific terms agreed with the mortgagor. Typically, the loan documentation will identify those events of default by the mortgagor which give rise to the right on the part of the mortgagee to take enforcement action.
The general rule under Norwegian law is that a mortgagee seeking to enforce a ship mortgage is not entitled to take over, sell or otherwise dispose of a mortgaged vessel without first commencing proceedings before a Norwegian court. In order to file a petition for enforcement in Norway, a mortgagee must establish the validity of the claim and the basis of enforcement.
In a recent case the charterers argued that a London Maritime Arbitrators Association tribunal had erred as a matter of law in awarding damages to the shipowners despite the fact that they had suffered no loss, and so had ignored a fundamental principle in English law that damages are intended to be compensatory. The decision both simplifies and makes clear the basis on which losses are to be recovered
The 2007 overhaul of the Norwegian tonnage tax regime proved controversial, with lawsuits following the government's decision to tax retrospectively income that was previously tax exempt. A 2010 Supreme Court ruling that this should be reversed has since restored confidence in the regime. All in all, the Norwegian tax package has become very competitive and shipowners are showing increased interest as a result.
Before a closing meeting for the sale and purchase of second-hand vessels takes place, the sequence of steps to be taken for payment of the purchase price and delivery of the seller's documents must be agreed, as well as whether the buyer or the seller should take the first step. Identification of the most suitable solution at an early stage will assist in achieving smooth delivery of the vessel.
The Court of Appeal recently overturned a first instance judgment for owners' liability for cargo damage, in a case regarding the grounding of a general cargo ship off Orkney in January 2007. The appeal court decided in favour of the vessel's owners, judging that they had taken reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of the vessel and its cargo. The cargo interests have appealed the decision.
Recent maritime accidents in Norway have led to the extensive seizure of property and documents by the police and the Accident Investigation Board. Although such seizures may be a necessary part of the investigative process, they are also an interference with property, and may cause delay to vessels and result in other problems, in particular with regard to civil claims.
The Nedre Telemark District Court's sentence for the master and third officer of the tanker Full City, which grounded off Langesund in July 2009, has heightened concern that Norway is following an unfortunate international trend of increased criminalisation of seafarers. The court found both the master and the third officer guilty of violating the Pollution Act due to their failure to take adequate measures to prevent pollution.
In a recent decision by Oslo City Court, a boycott instigated by the Norwegian Maritime Union to raise wage levels on foreign-flagged vessels was held to be illegal. The court held that the interest in protecting Norwegian seafarers' employment onboard vessels operating on the continental shelf did not outweigh the clear need for a shipowner to maintain its competitiveness by employing seafarers from other countries.
The Norwegian Marine Insurance Plan is a comprehensive set of insurance conditions developed by insurers, shipowners and average adjusters. The plan is supplemented by an extensive commentary; both are revised at regular intervals by the Standing Revision Committee. This update provides a review of the most significant changes in the 2010 version.
Maritime accidents which cause damage or injury to people, the environment or property are often followed by a police investigation. The master and crew of a vessel are frequently considered suspects and, as such, have certain procedural rights. As the entire crew is a defined group of persons that may have contributed to the accident, everyone within that group may be considered a suspect in particular circumstances.
The new Harbours and Fairways Act recently entered into force, replacing the earlier Harbour Act. Owners of vessels which operate in Norwegian coastal waters may find themselves more likely to become subject to a wreck removal order as Section 35 of the new act increases the grounds on which the authorities can issue wreck removal orders.
In NH Sunvictor the vessel's machinery stopped working as the cooling water intake became clogged with ice. The vessel grounded and suffered damage. The vessel sustained further damage during the refloating operation. The Supreme Court regarded the sequence of damage as having resulted from the same peril and decided that only one deductible applied.
In 2008 Norway implemented a new investigation system which separated the safety and criminal aspects of accident investigation. Following an international trend, the new rules gave the Accident Investigation Board the authority to investigate accidents to identify the circumstances of importance to improve overall safety at sea. The investigation of the grounding of Full City was the first test for the new system.
Faced with plummeting freight rates and the possibility of more vessels on hand due to early redeliveries from charterers, many owners have already decided to lay up some of their tonnage. Laying up a vessel is a last resort. All other commercial ways of employing the vessel should be explored before taking such a step.
The Ministry of Justice has issued a consultation paper requesting views on whether Norway should sign the Rotterdam Rules at the signature ceremony on September 23 2009. Signing the rules will not oblige Norway to comply with them, since a subsequent ratification will be required. However, a signature will have a symbolic effect, showing that the government supports the adoption of the convention.
In turbulent times it becomes even more necessary to balance properly the liability for design errors between buyers and shipyards. Whether it is time to return to the solution in the 1981 Standard Shipbuilding Contract regarding design liability is something that the industry must decide, but the fact that attention is again being given to the issue of design liability could prompt new regulation on this issue.
Five years after the Rocknes ran aground after hitting an unmarked shoal, the claimants filed a lawsuit against the government claiming compensation for losses incurred. The Norwegian First Instance Court heard the case in February and March 2009. The principal issue was the standard of duty of care that was to be applied with respect to the state's liability.
As a consequence of the challenging times that the shipping industry faces, an increasing number of requests are being made regarding the procedure for arrest and forced sale of vessels. While arrest, or even the threat of arrest, may be a tempting way for a claimant to get the debtor's attention and hopefully receive payment, it may not be equally tempting to embark upon a forced sale procedure to collect the debt.
An arrest is normally obtained to provide security for a claim against the vessel owner, but it is also an effective way to press for a quick settlement of undisputed claims. The fact that vessels constantly change locations and continuously incur debt and liability means that an arrest, or the threat of an arrest, is an important tool for suppliers and other creditors to ensure payment of claims.
The decline of the shipping market has had an unprecedented impact across the full reach of the industry. More than 500 vessels or rigs are on order for Norwegian interests at a time when shipyards and buyers are facing severe financial challenges. This update looks at some of these challenges and discusses, from the buyer's perspective, some strategic considerations which may be of use when renegotiating terms.
A buyer that has entered into a contract with a shipyard for the construction of a vessel often wishes to utilize the value of the shipbuilding contract as part of its financing scheme during the construction period by mortgaging it. This update looks at the questions this raises, as well as the relevant legislation and conflicts which may arise.
The Maritime Logistics Chains and the Environment Project, which commenced in October 2008, is a bold, progressive project focusing on how international sea transport may be optimized to reduce fuel emissions. Heavyweight DNV Maritime is the project owner and major players such as Höegh Autoliners, StatoilHydro and MARINTEK are involved.
The term 'warranties' refers to conditions under which the insurer is discharged from liability in case of non-compliance, irrespective of whether there is fault on the part of the assured or causation between the breach and the loss. However, it is disputable whether such warranties are valid in marine policies governed by law in cases where there is no causation between the breach of the warranty and the loss.
Following an accident involving a bulk carrier in 2007, the government realized that the existing limitation of liability amounts for wreck removal and other clean-up costs related to maritime accidents were insufficient to give full compensation in all imaginable cases. Therefore, it recently submitted a bill to Parliament proposing to double the limitation amounts for liability.
The Ministry of Trade and Industry has proposed amendments to the Maritime Code that would make it possible to register and perfect mortgages in the Norwegian Shipping Registry on hulls that are built abroad and towed to Norwegian yards for completion.
The Supreme Court has extended the protection for shipowners that establish a limitation fund with a European court against enforcement proceedings in Norway, irrespective of whether Norway and the European country in which the fund has been established are parties to the same maritime limitation of liability conventions.
In the event of a marine casualty the shipowner may be ordered to remove the shipwreck or to cover the costs of having the wreck removed. If the shipowner is unwilling or unable to remove the wreck or to cover the wreck removal costs, the question arises as to whether the government may bring a claim for the wreck removal costs directly against the relevant protection and indemnity club.
The phenomenon of pitting corrosion in tanker vessels carrying crude oil products has been recognized for decades, but has significantly increased since the shift to double hull tankers. Pitting can require repairs that disrupt the commercial operation of a vessel, potentially create a risk of pollution and jeopardize the safety of the vessel and crew.
The new system for investigating maritime casualties grants the Norwegian Accident Investigation Board - a professional, independent and permanent body - authority to investigate all maritime casualties that occur within Norwegian jurisdiction and any that occur outside Norwegian jurisdiction but involve Norwegian vessels.
In its ruling on the Rocknes Case, the Supreme Court delivered a rap on the government's knuckles for its over-eagerness to implement the higher limitation amounts on claims set out in the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims.
One of a shipowner’s greatest fears when ordering a newbuild is cash-flow problems at the shipyard. If such a situation arises, the shipowner can protect its interests in various ways depending on whether its main concern is to have the instalments returned or to have the vessel completed.
Since 1987 EU Block Exemption Regulation 4056/86 has allowed liner conferences to fix prices and regulate capacity under certain conditions. This will cease on October 18 2008, following which the slightest violation of the competition rules may trigger dawn raids, investigations and penalties, including significant fines and criminal liability.