菜单
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:

相关新闻和市场洞悉

新闻 / Ince celebrates one year since Scotland office opening

23-11-2022 / 保险, 航运, 房地产

We are pleased to be celebrating one year since opening our first Scottish office in the city of Glasgow.  Stefanie Johnston, dual-qualified Partner and Head of Scotland, has worked tirelessly over the last year to develop our offering through the opening of an Ince office in what is arguably an established Scottish market. Starting from the ground up, Stefanie and her team have successfully gained an admirable reputation in the region and further afield in the maritime, insurance, real estate and regulatory sectors. 

Ince celebrates one year since Scotland office opening

新闻 / Shipping E-brief November 2022

17-11-2022 / 航运

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 November 2022

新闻 / Appeals from arbitration: is reform required?

15-11-2022 / 航运

In September 2022, the UK Law Commission published a consultation paper with provisional recommendations for updating the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act 1996). Amongst other things, the Law Commission considered whether any changes need to be made to: (i) s.67 of the Act 1996, which deals with jurisdictional challenges to arbitral awards; and (ii) s.69 of the Act 1996, which deals with appeals on points of law.

Appeals from arbitration: is reform required?

新闻 / Owners not in breach of charter and entitled to claim demurrage

09-11-2022 / 航运

CM P-MAX III Limited v. Petroleos Del Norte SA (MT Stena Primorsk) [2022] EWHC 2147 (Comm) This recent laytime and demurrage dispute demonstrates that an owner can legitimately refuse orders where such orders may jeopardise the safety of a vessel.

Owners not in breach of charter and entitled to claim demurrage

新闻 / Court of Appeal finds owner should have accepted non-contractual performance

09-11-2022 / 航运

Mur Shipping BV v. RTI Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1406 A majority of the Court of Appeal has held that the Owner under a contract of affreightment (COA) should have accepted payment of freight in Euros, rather than the US dollars provided for in the COA. Its refusal to do so meant that the Owner could not rely on the force majeure clause in the COA, in circumstances where US sanctions might have restricted US dollar transfers from or on behalf of the Charterer.

Court of Appeal finds owner should have accepted non-contractual performance

新闻 / “Due” means due!

03-11-2022 / 航运

Ceto Shipping Corporation v. Savory Inc (Victor 1) [2022] EWHC 2636 (Comm) The Court in this case had to construe a purchase option clause in a bareboat charter. Specifically, it considered whether the fact that the charterer had not fulfilled certain payment obligations under the charter because it was disputing them in good faith meant that the owner was not obliged to transfer title to the vessel at the end of the charter period.

“Due” means due!