Maridive VII, Maridive XIII, Maridive 85 and Maridive 94, Owners, Masters and Crews of the tugs v Key Singapore, Owners and Demise Charterers of the oil rig [2004] EWHC 2227 (Comm) (06 October 2004)

Maridive VII, Maridive XIII, Maridive 85 and Maridive 94, Owners, Masters and Crews of the tugs v Key Singapore, Owners and Demise Charterers of the oil rig [2004] EWHC 2227 (Comm) (06 October 2004)

The appeal arbitrator did not err in law by apportioning equal fault to tug and tow for failure to heave to. Established law does not require that the party in overall command (the tow) is, as a matter of law, more to blame in comparative fault analysis. The correct approach is to assess the causative potency and blameworthiness of each party's conduct on the facts.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 2227 (Comm)
Parties
Claimants: The Owners, Masters and Crews of the Tugs 'Maridive VII', 'Maridive XIII', 'Maridive 85' and 'Maridive 94'; Respondents: The Owners and Demise Charterers of the Oil Rig 'Key Singapore', Her Equipment, Stores and Bunkers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.69 / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitral Award
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Salvage Remuneration, Apportionment of Liability, Relative Responsibilities of Tug and Tow, Interpretation of Article 18 of the Salvage Convention
Maritime Law Arbitration Salvage Remuneration Apportionment of Liability Relative Responsibilities of Tug and Tow Interpretation of Article 18 of the Salvage Convention

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Owners, Masters and Crews of the Tugs 'Maridive VII', 'Maridive XIII', 'Maridive 85' and 'Maridive 94'

Claimants

The Owners and Demise Charterers of the Oil Rig 'Key Singapore', Her Equipment, Stores and Bunkers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.69 / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal arbitrator erred in law in apportioning equal fault to tug and tow for failure to heave to, contrary to established law on relative responsibilities
  2. 2 Whether overall command of a towage convoy imports an enhanced degree of fault in comparative fault analysis

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal arbitrator did not err in law by apportioning equal fault to tug and tow for failure to heave to. Established law does not require that the party in overall command (the tow) is, as a matter of law, more to blame in comparative fault analysis. The correct approach is to assess the causative potency and blameworthiness of each party's conduct on the facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed