Menu
General Average piracy negotiation expenses allowed by the Supreme Court

News / / General Average piracy negotiation expenses allowed by the Supreme Court

The background factsThe Longchamp was hijacked on 29 January 2009 in the Gulf of Aden and the Master was ordered to divert the vessel to Eyl, Somalia A ransom of US6 million was demanded, which was countered by an initial offer of US373,000 by the Owners, after which GA was declared on 3 February 2009 The crisis management team set up by the Owners had a target settlement figure of US15 million and, after a negotiation period of 51 days, a ransom of US185 million was agreed During the negotiation period, the Owners incurred operating expenses, including in respect of bunkers, crew wages and maintenance, totalling around US160,000 The recoverability of these expenses as GA and the interpretation of Rule F of the YAR became the focus of the proceedings The Average Adjuster included these negotiation expenses in the average adjustment Cargo interests and their insurers brought a claim for the repayment of their GA contributions in respect of such expenses, which they contested were not properly payable as GA Lower court decisionsAt first instance, the Commercial Court ruled against cargo interests and their insurers and found that the expenses incurred during the negotiation period were payable as GA under Rule F of YAR as substituted expensesRule F of YAR provides as followsAny additional expense incurred in place of another expense which would have been allowable as general average shall be deemed to be general average and so allowed without regard to the saving, if any, to other interests, but only up to the amount of the general average expense avoided (Emphasis added)The Court of Appeal overruled the decision at first instance, finding that the negotiation period expenses were not payable as GA as they did not fall within Rule F of the YAR and could not be classified as substituted expenses Cargo interests successfully argued that the negotiation expenses did not represent an alternative to the ransom and, therefore, were not in place of another expense In their interpretation of Rule F of the YAR, the Court of Appeal said that there had to be a real choice' open to owners, which, in this case, there was not It is worth noting that the Court of Appeal's decision was in line with the views of the majority of the Advisory Committee of the Association of Average Adjusters UK, who also considered that the expenses had not been incurred in place of another as the only option available to the Owners was negotiation The Supreme Court decisionThe Supreme Court considered six issues presented by cargo interests in opposition to the Owners' appeal, on two of which the Supreme Court made an alternative ruling to the Court of Appeal These two issues are discussed below The first issueIt would not have been reasonable to accept the initial ransom demand Both the Commercial Court and the Court of Appeal found that the Owners had to (and did) establish that it would have been reasonable to accept the initial ransom demand to justify the argument that the negotiation period expenses fell within Rule F The Supreme Court did not agree and said that, if followed, this would lead to very odd resultsnbsp The Supreme Court considered that the words in Rule F another expense which would have been allowable as general average were a reference to an expense of a type which would have been allowable under Rule A (under which a ransom would be recoverable in GA) and that the quantum of such expense should not be the deciding factor (Lord Mance dissented on this point and considered that both type and quantum should be relevant) On this basis, the US160,000 incurred in operating expenses fell within Rule F as it represented expenses incurred to avoid paying a type of expense, namely a ransom, which would have been an allowable expense The only other requirement was that the expense in question did not exceed the cap in Rule F that the actual expense does not exceed the general average expense avoided this was satisfied in this case The second issueThe reduction in ransom was not an alternative course of actionThe cargo interests won on this point at the Court of Appeal and successfully argued that the payment of a reduced ransom was not an alternative course of action to paying the initial ransom but instead was a variant and, therefore, Rule F was not engaged The Supreme Court did not agree with the Court of Appeal's logic on this point, finding that incurring US160,000 in negotiation period expenses was an alternative to paying a higher ransom the former involved incurring vessel-operating expenses whereas the latter involved paying a ransom The Supreme Court went on to comment that the notion of placing a qualifying requirement that Rule F expenses must be an alternative course of action in order to be payable was very dangerous They placed emphasis on the international nature of the YAR and that due to the number of jurisdictions reliant upon them, a plain reading using ordinary language must be adopted Comment This case is the first time that the English courts have considered Rule F of YAR and the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision is likely to cause some reflection as to how it is to be applied in practice It leaves open the issue of how, in practice, the cap imposed by Rule F will be applied and, in particular, how the hypothetical expense avoided is to be determined Of more general note is the Supreme Court's caution that (i) in interpreting an international convention or treaty (with which it equated the YAR) it is not appropriate to read in words or qualifications to the language actually used and (ii) care is needed in relying on what might be regarded as industry accepted practices and texts, commenting that the law cannot be decided by what is understood among writers and practitioners in the relevant field
Frances Drain

Frances Drain Senior Associate

Related sectors:

Related services:

Related news & insights

News / IMO’s Short Term Measure for reducing greenhouse gas emissions: implications for maritime industry

16-09-2022 / Maritime

The committee responsible for addressing environmental issues under the remit of the IMO is the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC). Amongst several of its environmental safeguarding initiatives, the MEPC’s work includes the control of emissions from ships, including greenhouse gas emissions.

IMO’s Short Term Measure for reducing greenhouse gas emissions: implications for  maritime industry

News / Shipping E-brief September 2022

14-09-2022 / Maritime

The Shipping E-Brief is a publication providing you with key information on legal decisions and developments in shipping and related business areas.

Shipping E-brief September 2022

News / UK Government National Strategy for Maritime Security emphasises importance of cyber resilience

13-09-2022 / Maritime

“Our vision is that the UK in 2030 will continue to be a leading responsible and democratic cyber power, able to protect and promote our interests in and through cyberspace in the support of national goals.”

UK Government National Strategy for Maritime Security emphasises importance of cyber resilience

News / Finance charters and events of default

08-09-2022 / Maritime

OCM Maritime Nile LLC & Anor v. Courage Shipping Co Ltd & Others (Courage and Amethyst) [2022] EWCA Civ 1091 This case concerned an alleged Event of Default under a finance bareboat charter and owners’ rights to terminate and raised issues of general importance under bareboat charters.

Finance charters and events of default

News / Court applies traditional good weather method for assessing vessel’s performance

07-09-2022 / Maritime

Eastern Pacific Chartering Inc v. Pola Maritime Ltd (Divinegate) [2022] EWHC 2095 (Comm) The Court has recently dismissed a claim for wrongful arrest in an underperformance dispute and also given helpful guidance as to how speed and performance cases are to be approached.

Court applies traditional good weather method for assessing vessel’s performance

News / Ince Scotland: Acquittal secured in marine prosecution - July 2022

02-09-2022 / Maritime

Dual-Qualified Partner, Stefanie Johnston, led the team from Ince, assisted by Iain Franklin, Senior Associate, following a Scottish instruction to act on behalf of Mr. Steven Davie, who was being prosecuted for alleged breaches of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (“COLREGS”). The defence at trial was conducted by David Nicolson, advocate from Compass Chambers. Mr. Davie’s legal team successfully secured his acquittal at Inverness Sheriff Court.

Ince Scotland: Acquittal secured in marine prosecution - July 2022