This legal bulletin is based on Court of Appeal‘s decision on 22 January 2015. In case of Ocean Victory[2015] EWCA Civ 16, Court of Appeal Civil Division upheld the appeal of Charterers on points of law, and thereby reversed the decision of Court of First Instance: see Ocean Victory [2013] EWHC 2199 (Comm) .
The Court of First Instance decision was so severe that it shook the insurance market world-wide as the port where the Charterers sent the vessel was pronounced as unsafe thereby resulting in the liability of USD 135 million on Charterers, who then passed this liability onto the sub-charterers. By that decision, obviously hull underwriters of the vessel were very happy, but Charterers’ Underwriters were shocked as a first-class discharge port of Kashima in Japan was declared unsafe due to finding of unsafe systems in the port and that resulted in their potential liability of USD 135 million. The amount involved was so huge that everybody in the insurance market knew that it was going to be appealed.
See attached file: ALCO20150006 Another saga of big unsafe port case – Ocean Victory.pdf
关于不安全港的又一重大案例 – “Ocean Victory”轮案始末
本法律通函基于2015年1月22日上诉法院的判决。Ocean Victory[2015] EWCA Civ 16 一案上诉法院民事审判庭支持租家上诉的法律立场，并推翻了一审判决Ocean Victory [2013] EWHC 2199 (Comm) .
一审法院的判决十分严厉，震惊了全球保险市场，由于租家指示船舶所去的港口被判定为不安全港，而导致1.35亿美金的租家责任，租家随后将这一责任转嫁到下租家。显然，这一判决让船舶的船壳保险人很高兴。而租家的保险人却倍感震惊，因为日本鹿岛港是一流的卸货港，却被宣布为不安全港，理由是发现港口的体系不够安全，这导致他们可能要承担1.35亿美金的责任。涉及金额如此巨大，保险市场上人人都断定此案必然上诉。
详细信息请参阅附件。
