长期以来, 海事领域一直对给付赎金的合法性问题存在着争议，索马里附近海域的海盗活动有着加剧的趋势，据报导2009年间总共有200起袭击事件而其中约50宗被劫持事件。由于会影响各方的利益，在实际操作中显而易见的方法是应海盗的要求给付赎金。尽管于目前的实际操作中，赎金是否被视作共同海损，或者赎金金额较大的情况下是否能够引发船壳险索赔是存在疑问的。

梅斯菲尔德公司诉阿姆林公司一案

该案件源于2008年8月期间，载货轮 Bunga Melati Dua 于亚丁湾被海盗劫持时一名船员遇害身亡，数周后船东向海盗给付赎金并使该船被释放，而该船上的货物及其余船员均完好无损。尽管货物被归还但货主阿姆林会员公司仍然向保险人要求赔偿实际损失甚至是推定全损。

主审该案的 Steel 法官对该问题作出澄清，他引用了「只有当案件对公共利益造成实质的并无可非议时援引」原则，并引申指出当案件与公共政策相关时必须得小心处理。

他给出了数个原因去解释为什么给付赎金不应视为违反公共政策，他指出在英国法下梅斯菲尔德公司接受向海盗给付赎金并不视为违法，此外他认为法院应抑制干预立法行为而使得该种给付变成违法。尽管给付赎金会鼓励了海盗行为，但迄今尚未有其他更为有效的方法使得劫持的船只与船员安全返回，他同时指出海盗与赎金险是长期保险市场的产品。在法院不應因某一类型的保单被市场使用而拒絕判定其非法性的，在另一方面这实际反映过去十年来，海盗与赎金险己经被被市场规则所认可。

有些推论认为这些赎金给付行为也许会是一个污点，但结论是这些给付赎金的行为并不违反法律。

Question on legality on ransom payment

The marine market has long dwelt on the legality doubts about ransom payments.
It has been reported that piracy incidents provides hard figures for the intensity of piratical activity off Somalia during 2009. There were over two hundred attacks reported of which about 50 resulted in a hijacking. For more interests affected, the obvious solution shall be to pay the ransom demanded, despite of the current practice to treat a ransom as subject to General Average as triggering a claim on the hull and cargo policies, doubts remain.

Masefield AG v Amlin Corporate Member Ltd.

The case arose from the seizure of the laden Bunga Melati Dua in the Gulf of Aden in August 2008 during which a crew member was killed. Several weeks later, owners paid a ransom and the vessel was released. The vessel with her remaining crew and her cargo, were all intact. Despite having their cargo restored to them, the cargo owners Masefield claimed an indemnity from their cargo insurers, Amlin, for the actual or, alternatively, constructive total loss of the cargo (ATL and CTL respectively).

The decision made by Mr. Justice Steel clarifies on the question. He noted that the issues of public policy must be approached with great caution, relying on the doctrine “should only be invoked in clear cases in which the harm to the public is substantially incontestable.”

He gave few reasons on why payment of a ransom should not be categorized as contrary to public policy. He points out that the payment of ransom was accepted by Masefield as not being illegal as a matter of English law. Also, the courts should refrain from where legislative action has intervened to make such payments illegal. Although it is true that ransom payments encourage repetition of pirate activity but to date no viable alternative has been identified to secure return crews of seized vessels to safety. He also noted that kidnap and ransom cover is a long-standing insurance market product. While that is a long way from finding that the Courts should not render unenforceable a type of policy just because it is written in the market, this reflects the fact that K&R coverage has been acceptable to the s regulators for decades. market

A finding that the payment of these ransoms is somehow tainted would have had ramifications well outside this case. Concluding that payment of a ransom is not contrary.