Seaworthiness In Maritime Law

In the case, the issue is whether the ship owner, the carrier, Livelpool Shipping Corporation (LSC) could denied their liability by claiming the delegation of the delegated the responsibility of making the ship seaworthy to a firm of reputable and reliable repairers?

According Article 1 in Hague Rules , carrier includes the owner or the charterer who enters into a contract of carriage with a shipper. The concept of seaworthiness and unseaworthiness can be found in many aspects of maritime law. A vessel that is seaworthy in one circumstance may not be seaworthy in another. The definition of seaworthiness is the same under the different branches of Maritime Law; however, we are going to consider the definition of seaworthiness in the context

Pty Ltd v. Lancashire Shipping Co. Ltd. faced heavy weather during a voyage from Australia to London and the storm has caused damage to cargo in No. 5 lower hold. The case was brought to the court in United Kingdom. The plaintiff claims that failure of due diligence to prove seaworthy ship by carrier and caused cargo damaged by the seawater that flow into the hold during the storm. Defendant argued that he had engaged a firm of reputable repairers to repair the ship and ensure seaworthiness before sailing. Hence, he claim that they are not liable for the damage since they had exercised due diligence and have no capability to check the experts’ work. At the beginning, the High Court and Court of Appeal held exercise of due diligence had been delegated by owners to the ship-repairers. As a result of the negligence of their employee, the ship-repairers had failed to exercise that due diligence. Hence the defendant is not liable in this circumstance. However, the case was further appealed to the House of Lords. House of Lord represents the Supreme Court and serves as the highest court of appeal in UK . Lords held that carrier’s duty is to exercise due diligence in ensuring that he ship is seaworthy under Article 3 Rules 1 , and not obligation in securing the services of a reputable and competent professional to repair the vessel. In nutshell, Lancashire Shipping were held be liable for the damage on the basis of the

They held that there was insufficient evidence to justify a finding of unseaworthiness, so that the question of due diligence did not arise . Their Honours said that the absence of dehumidifiers was not a failure to have the vessels in a seaworthy state at the time the voyages commenced. That was because the chances of corrosion occurring depended on the amount of water in the hold at the commencement of the voyage, the likelihood of additional water entering during the voyage, likely fluctuations in temperature and available methods and equipment for removing moisture. They pointed out that Article 3 Rules 1 and 2 distinguished between the duties of the carrier to exercise due diligence, provide a seaworthy vessel and carefully and properly to handle the