United Loss Adjusters & Surveyors’ Post

This decision is a notable development for those engaged in cargo claims and commercial shipping, offering clarity on how collateral benefits are treated in maritime law. #MaritimeLaw #CargoClaims #CommercialLaw #ULA #Recoveries #Maritime #Shipping #Marine #MaritimeIndustry #ShippingIndustry #MarineIndustry #Claims #BillsOfLading

⚖️ FMC Allows Class Action Complaints Breaking news from the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC): The FMC has announced that class action complaints are now allowed. This means that groups of people can combine their resources to file complaints together, making it easier to address unfair practices in the maritime industry. The FMC believes this will help ensure fair treatment and compliance with regulations. At John S. James Co., we are dedicated to providing exceptional customs brokerage and freight forwarding services. Our expertise ensures that your shipments are handled efficiently and securely, even as industry regulations evolve. Stay informed and trust us to manage the complexities of the logistics landscape. Visit johnsjames.com to learn more about our services and how we can support your business. #Logistics #FreightForwarding #CustomsBrokerage #FMC #ClassAction #MaritimeLaw #JohnSJamesCo #SupplyChain #ShippingIndustry #LegalUpdates

“Point of Law” – Post 106: The “Lord Hassan” – where a shipowner was exercising a contractual lien on grain cargo on board the vessel to secure the payment of freight, and the cargo was at risk of imminent perishment, the court was prepared to granted an order on an urgent basis to permit the sale of the cargo, to allow the shipowner to realise the value from the security conferred by the lien, where the bill of lading issued was marked “freight prepaid” (but freight had not in fact been paid at any time) and the shipowner duly retained the bill, such that no other party possessed or became the lawful holder of the bill, and the non-payment of the freight was a matter to be determined in arbitration – see National Archives @ #shipping #maritimelaw #cargo #lien #arbitration #litigation

A recent court ruling confirms the court’s power to order the sale of #cargo to preserve assets in urgent situations. In this case, a shipowner sought to sell perishable cargo after charterers failed to pay freight, risking deterioration. The court applied Section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996, allowing for asset preservation in support of arbitration. This decision reaffirms the strength of shipowner liens and the court's ability to act quickly when cargo is at risk. Read this week's #Baltic feature👇 https://ow.ly/rvSK50UBLXZ #Court #Shipping #Maritime #Law #Legal

Recent development in the 'Carriage of Goods by Sea law' The claimant argued that the shipowner failed to deliver the cargo to the port of destination as stipulated in the contract of carriage concluded between the claimant and the defendant, further alleging that the Defendant deceived the claimant by not using his own vessel for transport. The shipowner was obligated to transport the cargo from Vladivostok to Nikolskoye on the Nerey. The defendant informed the claimant that due to the failure of one of the charterers to pay for carriage on the Nerey, the shipowner decided to discharge the whole cargo in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy. The defendant, offered to offload the goods at another port. The claimant demanded that the cargo be transported to the destination agreed. The defendant refused. The claimant submitted a claim. The Courts of first and appellate instances found in favour of the defendants. The claimant submitted a cassation appeal which came to be dismissed. The Court held that the contract between the claimant and the defendant was a time charter. The Court cited the relevant rules. However, to establish liability, the Court actually applied the provisions on the contract of carriage of goods by sea. The carrier is the person who concluded the contract of carriage, the bill of lading signed by the master of the ship is considered to be signed on behalf of the carrier. The shipper, in turn, is obligated to pay for the carriage. Kindly reach out to us for any further queries. Extract incorporated from: https://lnkd.in/d8i967Zx #Shippinglaw #carriageofgoodsact #COGSA #ship #vessel #russia #law #maritimelaw #QuadraantLegal

ARGENTINA - TIME BAR. 1) Cargo Claims: 1 year as from the date of discharge or when the goods should have been discharged. 2) Passengers: Argentina is a party to the Athens Convention and its 1976 Protocol which establishes a time bar of 2 years. When the Athens Convention is not applicable, the domestic Maritime Law provides for a time bar of 1 year. 3) Personal Injury - Death: 2 years as from the date of the incident; in tort it is 3 years. 4) Towage Contracts: 1 year as from the date on which the services are or should have been completed. 5) Collisions: 2 years. 6) Contact with FFO: 3 years. This is not expressly included in our Maritime Act. it should be considered a period of 3 years based on our general law. 7) Salvage: 2 years since its conclusion. 8) General Average: 1 year without no GA Bond, as from the date of discharge at the port where the voyage ended. 4 years when there is a GAB starting from the date on which it was issued. 9) Fines: Custom Fines: 5 years. Others: 3 years. 10) Pollution: 3 years.

#Arbitration and #Bailment: The judgment in Friday’s EuroNav Shipping NV v Black Swan Petroleum DMCC [2024] EWHC 896 (Comm) at [42]-[48] concludes at 48 there is a ‘high probability that EuroNav will make good its case… that the sub-bailment of the cargo to EuroNav was a sub-bailment on the terms of the agreement… and accordingly that in relation to its claim in Bailment against EuroNav it is bound by the arbitration agreement contained in [the agreement]’. This conclusion by Pelling KC embodies the two things I argued in the (2023) 139 LQR 592 (summary of article linked in comments) are contrary to the rule of law: duplication and discretion. The duplication is obvious. The reasoning that they are bound to the arbitration by virtue of the bailment is based on language not law. Why is the ‘consent’ binding in bailment but not contract? The only reason we are given is language ‘bailment’. But the exercise of discretion is stark. For a bailment on terms to apply as a matter of doctrine, there must be consent. Contract has a well established understanding of what consent is as a formal rule. Bailments does not because the only thing that defines its parameters is its maneoverable descriptive terms. Therefore, whether someone has ‘consented’ can be whatever the judge wants it to be. Here, at 44, Pelling does exactly that. He concludes that there was no ‘express consent’ to bail the cargo. But does this stop Pelling? No. Pelling willing accepts that the fact the bailor knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the cargo would be bailed was enough for him to conclude that there was the high probability of proving the sub-bailment. Yet we are cited no authority for this conclusion. It is, in fact, inconsistent with other cases, including Morris v Martin. Once again a judge is moving the boundaries of bailments to get to what they perceive to be a just result. It’s a discretion, not law. This point of the case is patently wrong in law. They are not bound to the agreement by virtue of bailment on terms. #PrivateLaw #ShippingLaw #MaritimeLaw #Shipping #ContractLaw Euronav https://lnkd.in/eGQe8FqU

🚢 The Federal Maritime Commission’s Final Rule on Demurrage and Detention Invoicing is now in effect! This rule ensures that D&D invoices include essential information and outlines clear procedures for disputing charges. If an invoice lacks the required details, there's no obligation to pay. Key points include who can be billed, the billing timeframe, and the dispute process. Husch Blackwell attorneys Julie Elise Maurer, Carlos Rodriguez, Julia Bonestroo Banegas, and Joseph Baratta share details of the requirements to protect your interests: https://lnkd.in/gc59H3-m #rulestariff #billoflading #oceantransportation

When it comes to the transportation of cargo, things aren’t always plain sailing. If the cargo is damaged, contaminated or lost during its voyage, disputes can arise and quickly transform into costly claims. At SMA, our expert legal team has dealt with all manner of cargo claims. Through this vast experience, we have sharpened our skills in this often-complex area to take on high-value work for a growing body of international clients, including but not limited to defending arbitration or foreign forum choice changes. See how we can help: https://bit.ly/3KEd8I2 #CargoClaims #ShippingLaw #MaritimeLaw

📢Judgment  The Commercial Court handed down its judgment in Hapag-Lloyd AG v. Skyros Maritime Corporation & Agios Minas Shipping Co, clarifying the law on damages for late redelivery of vessels under charterparties. This decision is of significance for shipping, commodities, and sales of goods law, and may have broader implications for contractual damages. Hapag-Lloyd successfully appealed, with permission granted for further appeals on certain issues. Julian Kenny KC and James Lamming were instructed by Wikborg Rein LLP. Read the full case note: https://lnkd.in/eNtZcGRg