You are on page 1of 18



By: Q05762235 – MCM Sept 10

Page 1 of 18

1561. Ø Carrier’s responsibility in Hague-Visby rules. Lloyd’s Standard Form of Salvage Agreement (Approved and Published by the Council of Lloyd’s) / SCOPIC (The special compensation P&I clause) v Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea. v Official Transcript and Case analysis of Tasman Orient Line CV v New Zealand China Clays Ltd (The Tasman Pioneer). v LOF 2011. Ø Theme 6 : Reference List and Bibliography By: Q05762235 – MCM Sept 10 Page 2 of 18 . [2010] NZSC 37. Article IV. Ø Theme 2 : Carrier’s Responsibility in Hague Visby Rules. Ø Theme 3 : Master’s Responsibility in Hague Visby Rules. The assignment is presented by the following themes :Ø Theme 1 : Case Analysis of Case Analysis of New Zealand China Clays Ltd (Plaintiff) v Tasman Orient Line CV (Defendant). Statutory Instrument 1998 No. v Hague-Visby Rules.K.[2009] NZCA 135. v The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 (SOLAS 74) v The ISM Code.Merchant Shipping (International Safety Management (ISM) Code) Regulations 1998. Article III v UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 v UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 v The Merchant Shipping (Master’s Discretion) Regulations 1997. Court of Appeal (New Zealand). Ø Theme 4 : Role Of The Company’s Safety Management System Ø Theme 5 : Conclusion. v Hague-Visby Rules. Bis 4 v Hague-Visby Rules. U.HND MCM SEPT’10 WDD004 Introduction: Understanding of Ø Master’s responsibility in Hague-Visby rules. Supreme Court (New Zealand). Article IV. Ø Role of Company SMS. known as the “Rotterdam Rules”. Rule 5(e) v Hague-Visby Rules. Using the Case Analysis of New Zealand China Clays Ltd (Plaintiff) v Tasman Orient Line CV (Defendant). The Body of Evidence: v Case analysis of Tasman Orient Line CV v New Zealand China Clays Ltd (The Tasman Pioneer). Rule 2(a). Article IV.

Owner: Rimba Shipping Co Limited. The officers opposed taking such a restricted passage at night but Captain Hernandez insisted. She intended to sail west along Japan’s Pacific coast and then through the Japan Inland Sea and Kanmon Strait before crossing Korea Strait to her destination. The second mate then checked the reconfigured radar and saw that Biro Shima was only about four cables on the port side. The visibility down to about two miles. Korea . she was making 15 knots into a northwest gale of about 36 knots and a 1m swell. All By: Q05762235 – MCM Sept 10 Page 3 of 18 . At about 2000hrs on 1 May 2001. While that was being done the master decided to abort the passage. Tasman Pioneer was running late on its voyage.HND MCM SEPT’10 WDD004 Ø Theme 1 : Case Analysis of Case Analysis of New Zealand China Clays Ltd v Tasman Orient Line CV Particulars of the vessel involved: Vessel’s name: Tasman Pioneer. Athens. she left Yokohama. Therefore to make up time. Charterer: Tasman Orient Line (Cyprus) Limited (Time Charter) Sub-charterer: Tasman Orient Line CV (Time Charter) The facts of the case: (http://www. Japan. he would shorten steaming time by 30-40 minutes by transiting between the island of Biro Shima and the south-western extremity of the island of rather than taking the usual route for entering Bungo Suido. Managed by: Technomar Shipping Limited.1 and 2 were found to be taking in Tasman Pioneer was chartered to carry New Zealand cargoes to various Asian ports. However. and the master was concerned to arrive at the Strait at a favourable tide. ship hit the sea floor.Within a further two minutes the ship developed a list to port rapidly to 8-10 degrees. At that stage. the forward ballast tanks and cargo holds No.veromarine. bound for Busan. At 0250 hrs the master changed course to transit the passage. About two minutes after the course change Captain Hernandez lost all images on the starboard radar and ordered the second mate to reconfigure it. the master decided that. Upon investigation . By the time he had warned the master and corrective action was taken. Type of vessel: General cargo vessel.

The central issue was whether the master’s actions that caused the damage to the cargo. However. the ship’s managers.HND MCM SEPT’10 WDD004 hands were summoned. After investigating the damage the salvage master invoked the SCOPIC clause. Captain Hernandez kept the vessel steaming at full speed for around 22 nautical miles and at least two hours to a point where he was roughly back in a position where he would have been if he had taken the normal course and anchored in a sheltered bay. entitled the carrier to rely on the protection of Article 4 – Exemptions. Coastguard learned of the casualty after being contacted by a passing boat. seek any other assistance or contact Technomar. and that if early notification had been given to the starboard tanks were flooded to correct the list and extraction of water from the flooded compartments was carried. The crew initially followed the master’s orders. but gave no indication of the cause of the damage to the vessel. Captain Hernandez contacted Technomar after anchoring. The cause of the loss was accepted by both parties as the conduct of the master following the grounding. By: Q05762235 – MCM Sept 10 Page 4 of 18 . The Master did not contact the Japanese coastguard. the crew eventually acknowledged what had actually happened. The operation to remove cargo continued. Technomar responded by contacting the vessel’s P & I Club to arrange salvage assistance. 2007) The master then instructed the crew to lie to the coast guard investigators that the ship had followed the planned route and had hit an unidentified floating object. which led in due course to the master confessing to the true circumstances. (http://www. In spite of it being apparent that the ship was taking on water. The vessel was temporarily patched on site and was towed first to Kanmon and then to the Onomichi dockyard for repairs. (Maritime Advocate Online. Over the next days the vessel continued to take on water and she was ultimately beached. their intervention would have prevented the damage. Rule 2(a) of the Hague Visby Rules . A Lloyd’s Open Form salvage agreement was The Claims and Judgements: Cargo interests alleged breach of bailment and contract under the bills of lading issued by Tasman Orient.

he had been acting on his own behalf and therefore could not be said to be acting in the navigation or management of the ship. Unless therefore the claimants were able to establish barratry. It was not convinced of the need to imply a requirement of good faith into article 4. the Supreme Court however saw no reason to omit the acts undertaken from the scope of ‘navigation’ or ‘management of the ship’ and concluded that the article had not been intended to change the common law. The courts concluded that the conduct of the master after the grounding occurred was selfish and outrageous and performed in bad faith. the master’s actions following the grounding were blameworthy. the claims were defeated by article 4.p. cargo and crew. because they were not undertaken in good faith. instead it had been pleaded that the master’s intention had been to derive personal benefit. The judge considered that the article 4. however the element of “an act or omission with intent to cause damage to the ship or to the cargo or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result” had not been pleaded. (Hjalmarsson. The failure to use the word ‘barratry’ in the pleadings was not in itself fatal to the claim. The owners had no knowledge of the decision to pass through the narrow channel and the master attempted to conceal the grounding from owners and charterers. which could not possibly be construed as an intention to cause damage to the cargo. They could not therefore be said to have authorised or agreed in the actions of the master.2(a) that the master’s act. could not be said to be in the navigation or in the management of the ship’. Supreme Court The Supreme Court rejected the decisions of both the High Court and Court of Appeals. In the absence of barratry. It had been held that the master’s conduct was entirely self-serving.2(a) implied that any action taken by the master was in continuance to his paramount duty of caring for the ship. However the courts read an inherent requirement to the exemption conferred by article 4.5 ) By: Q05762235 – MCM Sept 10 Page 5 of 18 . The claimant thought it was ‘acts of gross negligence which. the owners’ exemption from liability at common law remained. Unlike the lower courts. neglect or default was in an obligation of good faith. The Supreme Court said that the test for establishing barratry as an implicit qualification to the exemption conferred by article 4.HND MCM SEPT’10 WDD004 High Court and Court of Appeals The High Court and Court of Appeals gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs.2(a).2(a). On the facts of this case.2010.2(a) must be the same as that found in article 4. The parties disagreed on the definition of barratry. and as a result that article 4. irrespective whether it was a navigational or management act.2(a) did not apply. The carrier thought it must mean ‘conduct of the master or crew of a vessel intended to prejudice the owners of the vessel or its cargo’.5(e) and in article 4 bis 4: However the cargo claimant had not correctly pleaded barratry. but they were actions in the navigation or management of Tasman Pioneer.

The carrier can escape liability under Art. Ø The Muncaster Castle [1961] AC 807.HND MCM SEPT’10 WDD004 Ø THEME 2 : CARRIER’S RESPONSIBILITY IN HAGUE VISBY RULES. ‘before and at the beginning of the voyage’ which means a continuous duty from start of loading up to sailing. Article III(1) requires the carrier to exercise due diligence to make a ship seaworthy. Ø The Amstelslot [1963]2 Lloyd’s Rep 223. however it was proved that even a thorough check would not have revealed the defect.” v Referring to Hague Visby Article III(1) in the ANNEX . (Baughan 2004. as a duty to have a system to obtain all knowledge which the carrier has or ought to have about the nature of goods. v Referring to Hague Visby Article III(3): “After receiving the goods into his charge. which failed to reveal the defect. the carrier. where the vessel broke down due to a fatigue crack of unknown cause.p. where the vessel was disabled due to failure of reduction gears. shall. but only to take all reasonable precautions to achieve the same. on demand of the shipper. issue to the shipper a bill of lading. The carrier who fails to establish that it took due diligence can defend itself . we can see that Article III(1) modifies the common law by not imposing an obligation on the carrier to make the vessel seaworthy.” This article is discussed in Master’s Responsibilities under Hague Visby Rules. The carrier was ruled not to be in breach of duty as neither they nor the shipper had any knowledge that the cargo needed refrigeration. or the master or agent of the carrier. which was held by the House of Lords. prior to her sailing due to the negligence of an independent contractor in shutting storm valves opened for inspection. cargo of fish was damaged. Ø Yamatogowa [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 39.III(2) by proving the loss falls within the exemptions under Art.123-134) By: Q05762235 – MCM Sept 10 Page 6 of 18 . where due to lack of refrigeration. Article III(2) requires the carrier to act both “carefully” (self explanatory) and “properly” . The carrier was held liable for failure of due diligence. which were superficially inspected by the carrier in the previous year. As defined in the Hague Visby Rules. we can see that.IV(2). The carrier proved due diligence by carrying out an inspection before the voyage. “Carrier is a person or company such as ship owner or ship operator who agrees to carry goods or persons from one place to another. v Referring to Hague Visby Article III(2) in the ANNEX . Ø The Maltasian [1966]2 Llyod’s Rep 53. if proven that the failure of it’s duty did not cause the loss. where the water ingress damaged the cargo.

Ø Right to deviate: Hague Visby Article IV (4) states “Any deviation in saving or attempting to save life or property at sea or deviation within reason. they may in like manner by the carrier without liability except to general average. The benefit of the remaining causes which do not involve the carrier. and the shipper of such goods shall be liable for all damages and expenses directly or indirectly arising out of or resulting from such shipment. If any such goods shall become a danger to the ship or cargo.” Ø Right regarding dangerous goods: Hague Visby Article IV (6) states “Goods of an inflammable. v Referring to Hague Visby Article IV(2) in the ANNEX. The burden then falls on the carrier to establish that due diligence was taken to bring itself within the defence of the exemptions. however the claimant need not establish failure of due diligence . we can see that.HND MCM SEPT’10 WDD004 RIGHTS AND EXCEPTIONS OF THE CARRIER: Ø Right to exemptions of liability: v Referring to Hague Visby Article IV(1) in the ANNEX. with knowledge of their nature and character. can only be taken if the carrier establishes that the loss was not due to its negligence. explosive or dangerous nature to the shipment whereof the carrier has not consented.IV(2) grants the carrier immunity in a list of causes. Art.” By: Q05762235 – MCM Sept 10 Page 7 of 18 . will not be a breach of contract of carriage and the carrier not liable for any resulting loss. if any.the article does not change the burden of proving unseaworthiness from the claimant. The first two listed protect the carrier against loss caused by the negligence of its own servants. it has only to prove that the ship’s unseaworthiness was atleast a cause of the loss. we can conclude that. may at any time before discharge be landed at any place or destroyed or rendered harmless by the carrier without compensation.

both for his principal.HND MCM SEPT’10 WDD004 Ø THEME 3 : MASTER’S RESPONSIBILITY IN HAGUE VISBY RULES The master is a servant in law. keeping care for and discharge the goods carried. issue to the shipper a bill of lading showing among other things. the stowage is properly planned and stability is adequate as per loadline regulations. If this cannot be obtained endorse the BoL in English. (b) either the number of packages or pieces. handle. the shipowner and to some extent the owner of the goods he is carrying. or weight of the goods. hull being in sound condition. which includes. v Maxine Footwear v. including any endorsements on the Mate’s receipt to the BoL.etc). v Under Hague Visby Article III(1). Ø Check that the number of ORIGINAL bills corresponds with the number of bills stated to be issued. (c) the apparent order and condition of the goods. request for a translation. which includes. Points that the Master should note when Bill of Lading is presented for signature: Ø The Master must check the date on the BoL. As per COGSA ü ü ü ü 1992. (a) the leading marks necessary for identification of the goods.” In the case of deck cargoes . “the Master should. Gov’t Merchant Marine [1959]A. bunkers. the master should also state on the bill of lading that the cargo is stowed on deck without liability to the carrier for loss or damage howsoever caused and at shipper’s risk. namely As a receipt of goods shipped. the cargo spaces are fit and safe for loading. the carrier was held liable. 589. the Master should exercise due diligence in ensuring that the vessel is seaworthy. using all available means to ascertain the nature and characteristics of the cargo. Proper lashing and securing. Amend the bill if there are adjustments. Ø Check the description of the cargo against the Mate’s receipt. Ø If the BoL is expressed in a foreign language. carriage and preservation of the cargo. As an evidence of transfer of rights and obligations. As a document of title. fully equipped for the intended voyage (charts. By: Q05762235 – MCM Sept 10 Page 8 of 18 . v Under Hague Visby Article III(2). sounding bilges regularly. properly manned with trained crew. Ø Check that the port of delivery where the vessel is bound for. specially from the shipper. the Master as a bailee should properly and carefully load.C. As an evidence of contract between the carrier and shipper.stow.carry. Bill of Lading serves four functions. vessel is fully compliant with all applicable rules and regulations. is within the range of ports permitted by the charter party and crew agreement. Proper stowage and segregation. Canadian. but is not limited to. ventilation requirement. v Under Hague Visby Article III(3). but is not limited to. where the ship caught fire in port due to crew negligence. Never sign a post-dated or antedated BoL. or the quantity.

Ensure vessel is seaworthy at all times.part 3 say. To exercise care of goods entrusted to him and to preserve them in good order and condition during the voyage. charterer . regarding the order & condition of the goods. as they can make it “dirty/claused/foul” which has serious consequences for the shipper.317). Carryout all that usual and necessary for the employment of the vessel. Commercial: Complete the voyage with the minimum of delay and expense. Health and Safety: Maintain order and discipline on board.269) Both regulation reiterate the principle of “Master Under God”.176) In case of doubt. Ø Do not accept a letter of indemnity (unless authorized by the owner) (Salter 2008. Obey the owner’s lawful instructions. Ø Check that the freight rate on the BoL is not prejudicial to any freight rate in the charter party and if dead freight or demurrage is outstanding.1997 & SOLAS 2009.p. Ensure emergency drills are carried out regularly. p.HND MCM SEPT’10 WDD004 Ø Where carriage is under a Charter party. Ø Establish whether there are any special terms &conditions conflicting with the charter party. Ensure vessel complies with flag and port state regulations. Ensure owner provides for the health. The Merchant Shipping (Master's Discretion) Regulations 1997. v v v v Master’s main responsibilities: As described by (Salter 2008. safety and welfare of the crew.p. that these are endorsed on the BoL. Ensure that the vessel’s safety equipment and systems are in good order. which should take account of : 1) any relevant ship routeing systems. passengers. check that the terms of the Charter party are incorporated into the BoL. Voyage Planning: “Prior proceeding to sea. Operational: Ensure that all operations can be carried out without any hazard to people. cargo and environment. MASTER’S responsibilities can be summarised as follows: Primary: Safety of the crew. The voyage plan should identify a route. or any other person shall not prevent or restrict the master of the ship from taking or executing any decision which in his professional judgement is necessary for the safety of life at sea and protection of the marine environment. SOLAS Chapter V –Regulation 34-1. master is to ensure that a voyage is properly planned making use of appropriate nautical charts and publications also taking into account guidelines and recommendations developed by the organisation. “The owner.” (The NationalArchieves. the company. ship and cargo To safeguard the marine environment. the master has to seek advice from the P&I surveyor before making any remarks on the bill of lading. Act always in the best interest of the owner. ship. By: Q05762235 – MCM Sept 10 Page 9 of 18 .

HND MCM SEPT’10 WDD004 2) Ensures sufficient sea room for the safe passage of the ship throughout the voyage.” (SOLAS 2009. actions and activities which could cause damage to the environment. Pg269) By: Q05762235 – MCM Sept 10 Page 10 of 18 . 3) Anticipates all known navigational hazards and adverse weather condition.Chapter V –Regulation 34. and 4) takes in to account the marine environmental protection measures that apply and avoids as far as possible.

1.2. Section. 2.4) Responsibilities under ISM: 1. ü Reviewing the SMS and reporting its deficiencies to the shore-based management. ü Ensure that the master is properly qualified. ( ISM Code. Functional Requirements of Safety Management System (SMS): Every company should provide the master with ü “A Safety & environmental protection policy. regulations. fully conversant with SMS and given full support to carry out his duties safely. implement and maintain the SMS & monitor the safe operation of ships. SI 1561) Development of procedures. ü Ensure personnel are given proper familiarization of their duties. ü Ensure the ship is manned with qualified and medically fit seafarers.5. By: Q05762235 – MCM Sept 10 Page 11 of 18 . ü Motivating the crew in the observation of that policy. plans and instructions for shipboard operations: The company should identify key shipboard operations and establish procedures. procedures and policies and provided with training for the above. ü Ensure personnel have knowledge of rules. to develop. plans and instructions. DPA: ü Provide link between company & vessel. ( ISM Code. ü Procedures to prepare for and respond to emergency situations. Company: ü Designate a person with direct access to the highest level of management. Section. ü Monitor the safety & pollution prevention aspect of the operation. ü Issuing appropriate orders and instructions in a clear and simple manner. the International Management Code for the safe operation of ships and for pollution prevention (ISM) creates a culture of self regulation and requires companies to operate a Safety Management System (SMS) to develop and implement procedures and policies affecting safe management of ships and environmental protection. Section. ü Instructions & procedures for the safe operation of ships & protection of the environment in compliance with relevant international and flag state legislation. Emergency preparedness: Company should identify potential emergency shipboard situation and establish contingency plans and emergency procedures to respond them. ü Procedure for reporting accidents & non conformity. ü Defined level of authorities and lines of communication between shore and ship personnel. Master: ü Implementing the safety and environment-protection policy of the company. ü Ensure that adequate and suitable support and resources are available. Company should provide training and establish a program to undertake drills and exercise. ü Verifying that specified requirements are observed.4) 3. ü Procedure for internal audits and management reviews. including checklists incorporating the relevant international and flag legislation.” ( ISM Code.HND MCM SEPT’10 WDD004 Ø Theme 4 : Role Of The Company’s Safety Management System Required by SOLAS Chapter IX.1&5. ü Define and document the master’s responsibilities and overriding authority.

schedules. hazardous situations and non-conformity is reported. investigated. By: Q05762235 – MCM Sept 10 Page 12 of 18 . (ICS ISF.2010. The carrier was held liable for lack of due diligence in making the vessel seaworthy. Accidents and Hazardous occurances.HND MCM SEPT’10 WDD004 Provide measures ensuring that the company’s organization can respond at any time to hazards. accidents and emergency situations by development of shore based contingency plans. SMS should include procedures ensuring accidents. the judge ruled that the vessel was provided with irrelevant &/or obsolete documentation including Emergency procedures manual. car carrier that caught fire in the car deck resulting in total loss of ship and cargo. Reporting requirement of Non conformities. analyzed and corrective actions implemented by the company. shore technical support and records of the ship and critical equipment. thus making the manual misleading and dangerous. Maintenance of the ship and equipment: SMS should include procedures. Ch 2) Ø Eurasian Dream [2002]EWHC 118.

By: Q05762235 – MCM Sept 10 Page 13 of 18 .Shipping bulletin) The owners had no knowledge of the decision to pass through the narrow channel and the master attempted to conceal the grounding from owners and charterers. the lawyer and the role model. He has to be the disciplinarian. i. However. As seen in the case of the Tasman Pioneer. irrespective whether a negotiable transport document (B/L) or electronic record is issued. including the acts or omissions of the master and crew during the voyage (“nautical fault”). instead pleaded that the master’s intention had been to derive personal benefit. Ø Provides equal status for electronic and paper documentation. Unless therefore the claimants were able to establish barratry. If the master had reported the incident immediately. rational and cool headed at all times. analyzed the Hague-Visby Rules as follows: “The scheme of the Rules is clear. High Court and Court of Appeal concluded that though.e: master’s actions were to escape the responsibility for the grounding. He should be self confident. Supreme Court of New Zealand who delivered the judgment. which could not possibly be construed as an intention to cause damage to the cargo. Introduction) Salient features of Rotterdam Rules: Ø Covers all contracts of carriage if the shipment is either to or from a contracting state.HND MCM SEPT’10 WDD004 Ø Theme 5 :Conclusion. The cargo claimant had not correctly pleaded barratry or “an act or omission with intent to cause damage to the ship or to the cargo or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result”. The courts accepted that the master’s initial decision to navigate the vessel through the narrow passage was covered by the nautical fault exemption. He is wholly responsible and in command of the safety of the crew. such as the seaworthiness and manning of the ship at the commencement of the voyage. However. good faith and confidence.2(a). and the carrier was therefore exempt from liability for damage caused by grounding .” (UN Information Service 2010. salvors would have reached the vessel and saved the cargo. the financial manger. while respecting existing unimodal conventions. especially in emergencies where all look up to him for directions. Justice Wilson. They are not however responsible for loss or damage due to other causes. ship and cargo it carries. the claims were defeated by article 4. Alternative to Hague. He is a employee of the shipowner but “Master under GOD”. it was the master’s post-grounding conduct which contributed to the cargo damage. The master has to play different roles on board the ship.” (Lamplough 2010. Ø Balances the interests of carrier and cargo owner with regards to liability and risk.Visby Rules: The “Convention on Contracts for the Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea” ( Rotterdam Rules) were adopted to “establish a uniform and modern global legal regime governing the rights and obligations of stakeholders in maritime transport industry under a single contract for door to door carriage. the master’s post-grounding conduct was a failures in navigation and management it was not done in good faith. Carriers are responsible for loss or damage caused by matters within their direct control (sometimes called “commercial fault”). Ø Covers multimodal carriage. His relationship with the ship owner is based on special trust.

Article I “ Salvage is any act or activity undertaken to assist a vessel or any other property in danger in navigable waters or any other waters whatsoever”. Voyage data recorders. The most frequent excuse for lack of records is no time to complete paperwork . Chapter V. Checklists Training. claims are awarded. 1989. require all ships on international voyages to keep a ‘record of navigational activities and incidents of importance to safety of navigation’. who applies corrective action needs to be encouraged and supported by rest of the industry and the courts. who encourages reporting. all involved were doing their best to implement and follow their SMS. familiarization and training of sea staff is likely to come under scrutiny. The record must contain sufficient detail to restore a complete record of the voyage. If a master finds his vessel in a position of imminent peril and there is insufficient time to contact the owners. Inspection. master and crew attempt to falsify the records. he can conclude a salvage contract on behalf of the owners of the property onboard and the ship.2009. then he has exercised the necessary degree of due diligence to excuse his liability. The most dedicated salvage contract is the Lloyd’s Open form. significant amount of time is lost before the lawyer or surveyor comes on board. vetting. Hours of rest and work ( Overtime) sheet. There are serious consequences if the company.NO PAY” which means an unsuccessful salvage does not merit any By: Q05762235 – MCM Sept 10 Page 14 of 18 . Ø The recruiting.master and company management review. Regulation 28 and MS (Safety of Navigation) Regulations 2002. Importance of ISM & SMS: Ø The ship owner or master who has good procedures in place. The master has to collect this evidence for the lawyers and surveyors as ultimately the strength of the evidence satisfies the court of law of the truth. and based on these judgments. The court will doubt the credibility of the entire evidence produced by the owner. Following are the examples of evidence required to be obtained: ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü Deck and engine log books .HND MCM SEPT’10 WDD004 Ø Covers carriage of goods by containers. Salvage: As defined by International Convention on Salvage. this excuse will not be taken lightly by a investigator or the court of law. Ø Voluminous and irrelevant manuals will be criticized by the courts. familiarization and drill records Audit reports. in that time valuable information may be destroyed or lost. recognising that if he can demonstrate that he had good procedures in place. Record Keeping and Collecting Evidence: SOLAS. The contract is based on the principle of “NO CURE. When an incident occurs. repair and maintenance records. CCTV records / video / photographs. Oil record book Statement of facts and time sheets.

thus the master does not feel that by signing a LOF.HND MCM SEPT’10 WDD004 payment. there is a special compensation payable to the salvor.when a salvage is unsuccessful and the vessel or cargo has threatened damage to the environment and the salvor laboured to prevent or reduce the damage. By: Q05762235 – MCM Sept 10 Page 15 of 18 . he is exposing his owners to unlimited liability. The LOF comes with SCOPIC (Special COmpensation P & I club Clause). The contract is “open ended” which provides assessment of the award by Lloyd’s arbitrators.

10. Son & Fergusson Ltd 4. Available from: http://www. The Shipmaster’s Business London: The Nautical Institute 5.1st ed.2010.2010.1997. Great Britain: Cavendish Publishing Ltd E-RESOURCES: 1) J HJALMARSSON.[viewed 11th June 2011]. 2009. 2009. Available from: http://www.Shipping Bulletin [online]. 2004. London:IMO 2. The Merchant Shipping (Master’s Discretion) Regulations 1997 [online] [Viewed 10th June 2011]. Available from: http://www. Tasman Pioneer.Tasman Orient Line CV v New Zealand China Clay Ltd[2010] NZSC37. Guidelines on the application of the IMO’s International Safety Management (ISM) Code.hfw.Master's Duty of Good Faith [online] [Viewed 10th June 2011].com/ilaw/doc/view.php?article_id=469 4) THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES. 2007. Great Britian: 5) UN INFORMATION SERVICE. 4th ed. Tasman Pioneer .Nautical fault defence.SALTER. Business & Law for the Mariner. IVOR R. 5th ed. 3rd ed.The Hague-Visby Rules.legislation.June10. Shipping and Trade Law [online].com/publications/bulletins/shipping-bulletin6/shipping-bulletinjune-2010-tasman-pioneer-the-hague-visby-rules-nautical-fault-defence. Available from: http://www. 2008.HND MCM SEPT’10 WDD004 Ø Theme 6 : Reference List and Bibliography Reference List BOOKS: 1. Shipping Law. SIMON BAUGHEN. INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION. MALCOLM MACLACHLAN. 3) MARITIME ADVOCATE ONLINE.i-law. SOLAS. Available from: http://www.5. London: Marisec 3.htm?id=247611 2) LAMPLOUGH. Spain ratifies the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea [online][Viewed 10th June 2011] 7th ed.html By: Q05762235 – MCM Sept 10 Page 16 of 18 . ISF ICS.[viewed 11th June 2011].2011.

London: LLP 12.html [Assessed: 11th June 2011] 8) LOF 2011 [online] Available .westlaw. 2010. BARRIE JERVIS. London: The Nautical Institute E-RESOURCES: 6) Case Analysis [westlaw. GEOFFREY HUDSON & JEFF ALLEN. 7) Hague-Visby Rules [online] Available . Marine Claims 5th ed. London: LLP 9.lloyds. ISM Code. 2nd ed. Carriage of Goods by Sea. England: Pearson Education Limited 10. The Shipmaster’s Business self-examiner. The Nautical Institute on WILSON. Reeds Marine Insurance.A practical guide to the legal and insurance application. 2000. 2003.pdf [Assessed: 11th June 2011] By: Q05762235 – MCM Sept 10 Page 17 of 18 .co.admiraltylaw.http://www. DR. 6th ed. Safety Management And Its Maritime Applications. Maritime Law.2007. MALCOLM MACLACHLAN. 2nd ed. London: The Nautical Institute rbitration%20Branch/Agency_LOF_2011. 2009. London: The Nautical Institute 13. London: LLP 8. 1996. CHRISTOPHER HILL. PROF.HND MCM SEPT’10 WDD004 Bibliography BOOKS: 6. N. 130b969bd1391c72210&docguid=I7771FA802B3E11E085C4A124F157ADA5&hitguid=I7771 FA802B3E11E085C4A124F157ADA5&spos=2&epos=2&td=63&crumbaction=append&context=10&resolvein=true [Accessed 10th June 2011]. London: Adlard Coles Nautical 7. 7th ed. 7th ed. THE NAUTICAL INSTITUTE. PHIL ANDERSON. via Southampton Solent University website portal] [Password protected] Available http://login.www. CHENGI KUO. JOHN F.

2010.piperalderman.pdf [Assessed: 11th June 2011] 11) Paul Myburgh. The Hague-Visby rules back on course? [online] Available . Auckland).pdf [Assessed: 10th June 2011] 10) Paul David (Barrister. Case Note: New Zealand China Clays Ltd & Anor v Tasman Orient Line MCM SEPT’10 WDD004 9) Maurice Lynch. [Assessed: 10th June 2011] 12) Pictures of Tasman Pioneer after the Incident [online] Available TASMAN ORIENT LINE CV V ALLIANCE GROUP LTD. Unreported [online] Available -http://www.http://www. [online] Available. 2008.nsf/Content/PhotoFeature0009 [Assessed: 10th June 2011] By: Q05762235 – MCM Sept 10 Page 18 of 18 .veromarine. Trade and Transport News. Page 31 August