In some transactions, a non-Norwegian company may wish to register its ship with the Norwegian International Ship Register. This can be done only if the ship is managed by a shipping company that has its head office in Norway. This requirement has a bearing on the contractual structures and financing schemes that can be put in place and also raises issues concerning enforcement.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.