The Apeal Court judges, Lord Justices Flaux, Haddon-Cave and Males, agreed with the earlier High Court ruling, saying that it was important that ship passage plans should be fit for purpose. However, the lawyers said, “A substantial proportion of cargo interests had settled their contribution, but a number of others set out to establish a York-Antwerp Rule D defence that the vessel was not seaworthy at or before the commencement of the voyage.”Īs a result of that case it was found “that an appropriate preliminary notice to mariners had not been applied to the working chart, no annotations had been made indicating the danger and the danger had not been properly accounted for in the passage plan.” The shipping line then declared general average, collecting security from cargo owners. In a Court of Appeal ruling, which was described by lawyers Watson Farley & Williams as “significant”, judges said, on 5 March, that inadequate passage planning had rendered the 6,000TEU CMA CGM unseaworthy.ĬMA CGM Libra had left Xiamen port after part loading cargo with an inadequate action plan and was grounded, needing assistance to be refloated.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |