The Court of Appeal gives permission to appeal the decision of Teare J in the “Ocean Victory”

/

On 25 February 2014, the Court of Appeal gave permission to Daiichi Chuo Kishen Kaisha to appeal the decision of Teare J in the “Ocean Victory”. The permission has been granted solely in respect of the issues of ‘abnormal occurrence’ and ‘whether any unsafety of the port did not cause the loss’

 

Related: Case Summary of the High Court’s decision in the “Ocean Victory”

Further Clarification on The “Atlantik Confidence”

/

Nick Parton would like to clear up a misunderstanding circulating about the Court of Appeal judgment in this case.

It is being said that the Court of Appeal specifically held that a P & I Club guarantee is the only alternative now allowed to a payment of cash into court in order to set up a limitation fund. The relevant paragraph of Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s judgment actually said:

51. “For the above reasons, I would allow this appeal and declare that, as a matter of law, Owners are entitled to constitute a limitation fund under the 1976 Convention, by means of the production of a guarantee. As agreed prior to the hearing by all relevant parties, if and so far as is necessary, detailed consideration of the adequacy of the LOU offered by The Standard Club Europe Limited, will be dealt with by the Admiralty Court.”

The position therefore is that a guarantee issued by entities other than a P & I Club could also potentially be used to set up a limitation fund in England.

 

Tokyo District Court permits Limitation Fund constituted by P&I Club Letter

/

The Tokyo District Court permitted MOL to constitute the limitation fund by means of Japan P&I’s letter of guarantee with respect to the total loss of the “MOL Comfort” case.

 

Related: Court of Appeal’s decision in the “Atlantik Confidence” allows the constitution of a limitation fund by means of a letter of guarantee.