
Case Summaries
MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v Conti 11 Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co KG MS “MSC Flaminia” [2025] UKSC 14
In relation to time-charterers’ liabilities arising out of the explosion on MSC Flaminia in July 2012, the SC overruled the CA’s decision, and decided that a charterer can limit its liability to the owner under the Amended 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability. It further held that claims consequential to vessel damage may still be limited under any of the sub-paragraphs of Art 2, otehr than Article 2.1(a).
X-Press Mahanada, (Owners of the) v Burgan, (Owners of the) [2025] EWHC 721
X-Press Mahanada (“X-PM”), inbound to Chattogram collided in the approaches with outgoing Burgan, both under pilotage. Burgan was in the wrong location but claimed this was due to avoiding a military vessel, SS (a non-party). The Court found that Burgan failed to right her position, failed to keep a proper lookout, or to alert SS promptly. X-PM was not blameless but her faults were not causative. SS was held to be significantly at fault and played a key part in the collision - the Court apportioning her 35% to blame. Burgan’s liability viz-a-viz X-PM was therefore 65%.
London Arbitration 6/25 (2025) LMLN 1180
Under the amended NYPE 93 T/C trip from Terneuzen to Florida, the Master, having initially agreed and embarked upon Charterers’ recommended, shortest, northern route (via Pentland Firth), turned back in favour of the longer, souther (English Channel) route, in order to avoid Beaufort 9 conditions and waves in excess of 10m. Dismissing Charterers’ damages claim, the Tribunal found that due to legitimate safety concerns, the Owners were not in breach of Charter, and nor did the Master’s initial agreement preclude him from turning back.
SD Rebel BV & Anor v Elise Tankschiffahrt KG [2025] EWHC 376 (Admlty) (27.02.25)
Legal Battle Over Salvage: Stela’s Collision, Rescue, and Jurisdiction Dispute
London Arbitration December 2024 (unpublished)
In the context of a “freight payable BBB” provision, a London Tribunal decided that there was no obstacle in ordering the Charterers to pay a monetary sum to the Owners, even though the Charterers were (or may have been) sanctioned by the USA.