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

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

The appeal arbitrator did not err in law by apportioning equal fault to both tug and tow for the failure to heave to. Established law does not require that the party in overall command is, as a matter of law, more to blame where both parties have failed in their mutual duties. The assessment of relative responsibility must be fact-sensitive and based on causative potency and blameworthiness.

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
Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Salvage Remuneration, Apportionment of Fault, Relative Responsibilities of Tug and Tow, Interpretation of Article 18 of the Salvage Convention
Maritime Law Arbitration Salvage Remuneration Apportionment of Fault 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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

Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal arbitrator erred in apportioning equal fault to both tug and tow for failure to heave to
  2. 2 Whether established law requires greater fault to be attributed to the party in overall command (the tow)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal arbitrator did not err in law by apportioning equal fault to both tug and tow for the failure to heave to. Established law does not require that the party in overall command is, as a matter of law, more to blame where both parties have failed in their mutual duties. The assessment of relative responsibility must be fact-sensitive and based on causative potency and blameworthiness.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed