IMO calls for unity on bulk carrier safety

IMO calls for unity on bulk carrier safety

IMO secretary-general Bill O'Neil has highlighted the need for widespread and concerted efforts to improve bulk carrier safety.

O'Neil says, "Bulk carrier safety has been a priority on our agenda for over ten years now, and the work has not been finalised. I would therefore encourage, once again, all parties concerned to work in unison to bring the issue to a positive conclusion as soon as possible."

The IMO subcommittee on ship design and equipment has been asked by the Maritime Safety Committee to work on a number of tasks related to bulk carrier safety. Specifically, it will be looking at alternative means of sealing up anchor chain pipes to prevent water entry, and at whether access to chain lockers should be by bolted manholes and not doors. It will also be considering a recommendation that the installation of a level monitoring system in the spaces forward of the collision bulkhead be made mandatory on all capesize bulk carriers, and examining the need for an independent pumping system for such spaces.

The subcommittee will also address the idea that classification societies should require shipowners to maintain onboard and ashore as-built construction drawings and other plans showing subsequent structural alterations.

This work has been given a target completion date of 2002.

Convention Concerns

WITH over 30 million passengers moving in and out of UK ports each year, the ferry and cruise industry is big business. However, incidents such as the Herald of Free Enterprise and Estonia have raised questions over liability for the carriage of passengers by sea, currently governed by the Athens Convention 1974. This has culminated in the drafting of a protocol by IMO to amend the convention and to address liability issues. October this year marks a diplomatic conference to discuss the draft. With only six months to go, the Institute of Maritime Law and the British Maritime Law Association (BMLA) decided it was time to gather comment from industry on the impact the draft could have, and Clyde & Co recently hosted a seminar in London to discuss the draft. Chaired by John Wren, head of shipping policy at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR), the seminar raised a number of issues regarding the draft protocol:

  • One of the proposals under the draft protocol is the provision of strict liability. Although no limits for liability have been set, the danger is that some states will see them as too low, while others will see them as too high. How many states will ratify the convention therefore remains uncertain.
  • The question was raised whether cruiseships and ferries are really part of the shipping industry, or whether they are part of the leisure industry, given the much higher routine risk and catastrophe exposure they pose compared to cargo ships.
  • The provision of multiple jurisdictions for claimants poses a nightmare for the insurance industry, as does the ability to bring direct action against insurers.
  • The current Athens Convention is heavily influenced by developments in air law, despite the fact that passengers behave very differently on an airplane to how they behave on a cruiseship. The numbers of survivors from an incident involving a cruiseship are also usually much higher than those involving an airplane.

The future of the draft protocol remains uncertain. But concerns over potential weaknesses in the draft, and about the impact that the protocol could have on owners and insurers, will have to be addressed.

Early access to documents

POTENTIAL litigants in the UK courts have so far made little use of a powerful new weapon at their disposal. Ince & Co's Shipping Law Update refers to the procedure available to parties to apply to the court, before commencing proceedings, for an order that another party must disclose a document or documents. The court has the power, on the application of a person who is likely to be a party to subsequent proceedings, to order a person, who is also likely to be a party to the proceedings, to disclose documents in their possession.

The court may make such an order where persuaded that the respondent would have to disclose the relevant document(s) if proceedings have already begun, and if such an order is desirable to (a) dispose fairly of the anticipated proceedings, (b) help the dispute to be resolved without proceedings, or (c) save costs.

Although little used to date, the procedure is not restricted to potential claimants. It is possible to envisage the situation where a defendant shipowner may be prepared to settle a potential cargo claim and avoid the costs of legal proceedings if the claimant provides satisfactory evidence on quantum.