BIMCO’s big idea

BIMCO’s big idea

BIMCO has released an updated version of its internet-based charter party editing system. idea 2003 enables users to exchange documents for editing online, customise the appearance of amended forms and incorporate company logos into bills of lading. It also allows users to attach written and audio notes on screen to any part of a page of a document produced by the system.

The new features allow users to work together, wherever they are, and share documents securely and more easily – even between different companies. The new custom edit feature puts control over the final look of the document firmly in the hands of the user, while the ‘insert logo’ feature allows users to customise the form by inserting their own company logo. “There are currently 440 companies in 50 different countries using idea, so we are pretty confident that we have come up with a product that meets the needs of the industry,” says Jan Henrik Monsen, BIMCO’s business development manager for idea 2003.

BIMCO’s document editing system currently contains over forty different electronic forms. A number of non-BIMCO forms are in the process of being added, including several charter parties from major charterers.

Montreal countdown

THE Montreal Convention 1999, which will replace the whole Warsaw Convention system, has attracted 29 of the 30 ratifications it requires to bring it into force. The convention will come into effect between the states that have ratified it, sixty days after the next state has completed the ratification process.

The 29 ratifying members so far are Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Canada, Colombia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, FYR Macedonia, Mexico, Namibia, Nigeria, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Syria, Tanzania, United Arab Emirates. The other EU member states and the US are expected to also ratify the convention soon. (TT Club)

PRC explains all

THE People’s Republic of China Supreme Court has issued a series of explanatory notes to help provide greater clarity to foreign shipowners and their insurers when applying the country’s Maritime Procedural Law. The notes cover a number of issues related to court procedures, including rules on jurisdiction, security, maritime injunctions, evidence preservation, service and evidence.

The explanatory notes state that, in a collision case, a Chinese shipowner may bring its claim before either the Chinese maritime court which has jurisdiction over the port registry for its vessel or the Chinese port registry for the other vessel. The second option will not apply if the other vessel is foreign-owned or registered. For claims involving a contract for the carriage of goods, a Chinese maritime court may exercise its jurisdiction if the port of shipment, transhipment or destination falls within its territory.

When it comes to maritime security, if a claimant fails to bring its substantive claim, or to apply for arbitration within thirty days of the date of arrest of a ship, the court should release that ship from arrest or return the posted security. On the subject of maritime injunctions, parties can apply to a Chinese maritime court for a maritime injunction in support of substantive claims before they are brought before a foreign court or arbitration body. However, even if proceedings have commenced before a foreign court or arbitration body, an application for evidence preservation can be submitted to a Chinese maritime court if the applicant can prove that the evidence is within the territory of the Chinese maritime court.

Regarding the evidence rule, the explanatory notes state that, in collision cases, the parties must adduce all evidence in relation to the facts of the collision before the first hearing and may not subsequently challenge or contradict such statements. Any evidence submitted beyond the deadline set by the court - often thirty days from the acknowledgment of the service of the claims documents - will not be accepted by the court unless it is new evidence, e.g., evidence that was not in the possession of the party concerned, unknown to the party concerned or could not have been obtained by the party concerned before the deadline.

Finally, according to the Supreme Court, court documents may be served by fax and e-mails as long as safe receipt can be confirmed. The writ of summons for a court hearing, maritime injunction or maritime preservation order can be served on the master of the ship. (Holman, Fenwick & Willan, per International Law Centre)