CONVENTIONS

But with the appropriate insurance in place, why should the owner need to even think about limitation? The answer is that the international conventions providing the limitation require certain standards of behaviour to be met before granting this invaluable right. That way, it is hoped, the sea is made a safer place for everyone.

To understand how the opportunity to limit can slip through the owner’s fingers, it is necessary to look a little more closely at the international rules. It used to be that an owner could give up his ship to a claimant and walk away. As the ship would have been the beneficial owner’s largest asset, this was as much as a claimant could sensibly hope for anyway. This principal survives in Italy, the United States and parts of South America, but in most other countries the tonnage of the yacht will determine the owner’s limit in purely financial terms. A few nations still have no limitation regime whatsoever.

EXAMPLE

For example, a 35-metre yacht, with a gross tonnage of 120, negligently rams a cargo ship at night. Neither sinks, although the ship requires repairs costing £500,000. A further £500,000 of cargo is damaged, and the time spent carrying out repairs costs the owner another £500,000 in lost business. The yacht owner’s total liability in the UK would be just £650,000 approximately, not £1,500,000. The exact figure is determined using a basket of major currencies, and therefore changes daily.

Most countries are party to either the 1957 or 1976 Limitation Conventions. There are subtle but vital differences between the two. The 1957 Convention contains a lower limitation figure, but no limitation is allowed where an incident was the owner’s fault or was the result of something the owner knew about. The 1976 Convention sets a higher figure, but the right to limit will only be lost where the owner did (or failed to do) something with the actual intention of causing loss, or not caring whether or not loss will be caused. Whether or not ‘owner’ here refers to the beneficial owner who chooses to skipper his own yacht, will depend on how transparent the owning company will be to the courts concerned.

CHARTERER & MANAGER

Aside from the owner, the 1957 Convention allows a charterer or manager, and the captain, crew and any other employees, to limit liability. The 1976 Convention adds salvors and insurers to that list. Broadly, both Conventions limit claims for loss of life or personal injury to any person carried on board, loss of or damage to property, liabilities for dealing with a wrecked or abandoned yacht, and the infringement of any non-contractual rights. The Convention limits do not apply to payments to salvors, or claims by the captain, crew or any of the owner’s employees where the law, or the employment contact itself, does not limit liability. Each Convention has lower limits for property claims than for injury or loss of life.

FUND

Under the Conventions, where the owner could benefit from limitation, a fund can be set up with a court, or other competent authority. The owner can then make a deposit or present a guarantee of no more than the limitation amount. The setting up of the fund is not a prerequisite to limitation, but will help prevent the yacht being detained in future over the same incident, which would require the security to be provided anyway prior to release, seriously disrupting any charter. The owner’s other assets are also placed out of the reach. This is particularly important where a court considers the owner to mean the beneficial owner. Where the yacht has been detained as security for a claim before a fund is established, it will have to be released.

JURISDICTION

Of course, any Convention will only be as effective as the law implementing it allows. Details, even the limits themselves and those entitled to them, can vary, as countries embroider the Conventions with their own unique thinking. A claim may be subject to a number of possible jurisdictions, each applying different Conventions in different ways. What’s more, each jurisdiction applies it’s own rules in deciding whether or not their courts can hear a claim, and if so whether their own law should apply.

Jurisdiction can be founded by an owner, by bringing a pre-emptive action, in a jurisdiction with a favourably low limitation. Otherwise, there is a risk that an aggrieved party may arrest the yacht in a less favourable jurisdiction, presenting a vague case at that stage, leading to the case being later tried in those courts.

Jurisdictional arguments are highly complex and an adventure playground for unscrupulous lawyers looking to rack up large bills! Lawyers have also been known to contrive to keep the business in their own courts, even where this is not in the owner’s best interest.

INSURANCE

Insurance policies normally state that where the assured would have been entitled to limit liability, but failed, unreasonably, to take the necessary steps to do so, the insurers’ liability will not exceed what would have been the limitation figure. This implies that there is an obligation to ensure, if possible, that the claim is subject to a jurisdiction with a relatively low limitation figure. What’s more, the burden of proving that any failure to limit is not unreasonable often rests with the assured. The assured is also normally under a separate obligation to obtain the necessary legal advice and assistance, as and when required.

ADVICE

The important point is for owners (or their managers) to seek advice promptly in the event of an incident, in order for the jurisdiction to be established where the limitation is lowest. At the outset, a trusted lawyer in a reputable jurisdiction must be instructed, with the guidance and consent of the insurer, in order to work out a strategy for minimising liability. Other local lawyers in the most favourable jurisdiction can then be appointed. The insurers will have a network of reliable lawyers covering most maritime jurisdictions. Liaising with insurers, from the moment an incident occurs, will bring the insurers’ considerable expertise to bear and prevent the insurer from later claiming that the assured failed to do everything possible to limit liability.

As well as being a source of unrivalled pleasure and prestige, yacht ownership also carries with it certain responsibilities. As long as owners appreciate the importance of taking timely advice, from a reputable source, and of liaising closely with their insurers, they can rest assured that they have done everything possible to limit any liability.