英国最高法院已准许就Alize 1954 v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG (The “CMA CGM LIBRA”)一案的近期判决提出上诉。尽管该判决涉及共同海损，而我们会讨论在海上货物运输的更广阔背景下将这一不适航认定适用于风险和责任分配时的后果。
国际相关法律法规旨在就船方与货方之间对货物运输风险进行分配。简言之，船东对于由船舶不适航引起的货物索赔承担责任，但对于由某些风险（包括航行过失）引起的货物索赔则免于承担责任。Alize 1954 v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG (The “CMA CGM LIBRA”) [2020] EWCA Civ 293案的判决打破了通常观念中对“适航”和“航行”之间的既定界限，其结果使得船东承担了更大比例的海运风险。尽管CMA CGM LIBRA案涉及共同海损，但该判决导致了货方就基于航行决定问题而引起的不适航索赔的情况增多，这并不让人意外。船东最近已获得准许，可将判决上诉至英国最高法院，国际保赔协会集团支持船东的立场。
详细信息请参阅附件。
Defective passage planning: unseaworthiness or a navigational decision?
The UK Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal the recent decision in Alize 1954 v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG (The “CMA CGM LIBRA”). While the decision involved General Average, we discuss the ramifications of the finding of unseaworthiness as it applies to the allocation of risk and liabilities in the wider context of the marine transport of goods.
International law aims to apportion risk in the transport of goods between the ship interests and cargo interests. Simply put, shipowners are responsible for cargo claims caused by unseaworthiness of the ship but are exempt from liability for cargo claims caused by certain risks, including navigational errors. The decision in Alize 1954 v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG (The “CMA CGM LIBRA”) [2020] EWCA Civ 293 shifts the established boundary between what is considered “seaworthiness” and “navigation” resulting in shipowners bearing a greater portion of the risk of the adventure. While the CMA CGM LIBRA case involved General Average, it comes as no surprise that decision led to an increase in claims by cargo interests alleging unseaworthiness on the basis of navigational decisions. The vessel owners recently obtained permission to appeal the decision to the UK Supreme Court and the International Group of P&I Clubs supports the vessel owners’ position.
See attached file: Defective passage planning: unseaworthiness or a navigational decision?.pdf
