• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.41-53
• /
• 2015

In Paracomon Inc. v. Telus Communication, Realice's anchor became entangled with a working fiber-optic submarine cable during its voyage and are presentative of the shipowner(the captain) cut the cable. The owner of the cable brought a claim for the repair cost against the shipowner. The shipowner then advanced a third party claim against a liability insurance underwriter. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) held that the shipowner was entitled to limit its liability under the 1976 Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. The SCC also ruled that even though the misdeed of the shipowner was insufficient to break its right to limitation of liability, its wrongdoing constituted willful misconduct under the 1993 Canada Marine Insurance Act, allowing the underwriter to deny coverage for the incident. Thecasewasthefirsttoaddresstheinterrelationship between the shipowner's right to limit liability under the international convention regime and the availability of liability insurance with respect to such limited liability. This study analyzes the reasoning behind the SCC's judgment and evaluates the appropriateness of this court's decision based on the current maritime industry as well as prevailing maritime law. It concludes that the SCC's decision to declare that the shipowner retained the right to limit its liability is appropriate under the Limitation Convention (1976). However, its declaration that the liability insurer was discharged from liability is not correct in due consideration of the common recognition in the maritime industry, the intended purpose of a third party's right against the liability insurer, and the adoption process of the conduct barring limitation. Based on the SCC's decision, this study finally reviews the issue of the shipowner's right to limit and the coverage of the liability insurer in the Sewol case (2014).

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2017.11a
• /
• pp.131-131
• /
• 2017

• 해운
• /
• no.8 s.19
• /
• pp.44-44
• /
• 2005

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2012.06a
• /
• pp.269-272
• /
• 2012

통상적인 항해용선계약에 따르면 체선료의 책임은 반대의 문언이 없는 한 용선자에게 있는 것으로 추정된다. 그러나 실무에서는 용선자의 책임이 제한되거나 송하인 또는 수하인 등에게 이전되어 선주가 체선료확보에 어려운 상황에 직면하게 되는 경우가 빈번하게 발생되고 있다. 본 연구에서는 용선자, 송하인, 수하인, 선하증권의 배서인, 기타 이해당사자간의 체선료지불 책임에 관한 문제를 영미법의 사례를 중심으로 살펴보고 결론과 시사점을 도출하여 선주나 운항업자의 실무에 도움이 되는 방안을 제시한다.

• 해운
• /
• no.10 s.21
• /
• pp.2-19
• /
• 2005

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.37 no.6
• /
• pp.689-697
• /
• 2013

The demurrage is regarded as a kind of the ocean freight and a remuneration of the time lost for the vessel while in port. In ordinary occasions of the voyage charter, the liability of a demurrage is usually laid on the charterers unless any exceptions are incorporated. The owners are, however, often meeting somehow difficulty to secure demurrage in the field as the liability is limited or transferred to a third party from the charterers. This paper is focused on clearing the liabilities to be held by the parties involved through the English Law cases, and what's more is rendering a proper suggestions to the owners and charterers on dealing with the ship's operation business.

• The Journal of shipping and logistics
• /
• v.34 no.4
• /
• pp.583-613
• /
• 2018

This study analyse the safe port warranty undertaking for shipowner of time charterer with the Ocean Victory Case. Litigation ensued between those in the charterparty chain. When the hull insurer, Gard, took an assignment of the rights of the vessel's owners and demise charterers in a claim against the time charterers that the vessel had been ordered by them to an unsafe port in breach of the charter. Although the claim succeeded, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision. The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on May 10, 2017, dealing with three important issues, safe port, joint insurance, and limitation of liability. Especially on the safe port issue, the court held that the port was not unsafe within the meaning of the safe port undertaking so the charterers were not in breach of it. The conditions in the port amounted to an abnormal occurrence as that expression is understood.