Ship stuck across (blocking) the Suez Canal

[John M Upton]

I am willing to bet, given the run of poor luck it has had that the NGS Hunslet's are stuck in the middle of that lot somewhere....

[adb968008]

hope everyones insured... as predicted & right on cue
 

General Average declared...

 

https://theloadstar.com/lengthy-wait-for-cargo-as-ever-given-owner-declares-general-average/

 

time for the container owners to cough up and pay for it..

 

Refusing to pay, or chosing to dispute then no container of goods will be handed over... 

 

insurance lawyer fest now begins.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2021 by adb968008

[Nick C]

7 hours ago, adb968008 said:

hope everyones insured... as predicted & right on cue
 

General Average declared...

 

https://theloadstar.com/lengthy-wait-for-cargo-as-ever-given-owner-declares-general-average/

 

time for the container owners to cough up and pay for it..

 

Refusing to pay, or chosing to dispute then no container of goods will be handed over... 

 

insurance lawyer fest now begins.

 

 

Interesting. According to Wikipedia (yes, I know...) GA requires a common danger and a jettison of cargo to avert that danger - neither of which happened here. I suspect the legal arguments will go on for years...

[Tankerman]

12 hours ago, adb968008 said:

hope everyones insured... as predicted & right on cue
 

General Average declared...

 

https://theloadstar.com/lengthy-wait-for-cargo-as-ever-given-owner-declares-general-average/

 

time for the container owners to cough up and pay for it..

 

Refusing to pay, or chosing to dispute then no container of goods will be handed over... 

 

insurance lawyer fest now begins.

 

 

 

If you had fully read the statements contained in the article by a legal firm that you posted in reply to my post; where you suggested that I contact them, you would have seen that they specifically state that they had successfully contested the declaration of General Average by the vessel owner, on behalf of cargo owners, in numerous similar cases.

 

My understanding is that if the owner of the vessel declares General Average and the cargo owners successfully contest that declaration in court, then the vessel owner is liable for not only the cargo owners legal fees but also has to compensate them for any loss of income/profit on their goods. If this is incorrect and you quote the judgement where this has been proved incorrect I will be quite happy to apologise.

 

However we can agree on one thing, the legal arguments will go on for a long time and the legal teams involved will become richer.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2021 by Tankerman
Correcting grammar and spelling.

[adb968008]

3 minutes ago, Tankerman said:

 

If you had fully read the statements contained in the article by a legal firm that you posted in reply to my post; where you suggested that I contact them, you would have seen that they specifically state that they had successfully contested the declaration of General Average by the vessel owner, on behalf of cargo owners, in numerous similar cases.

 

My understanding is that if the owner of the vessel declares General Average and the cargo owners successfully contest that declaration in court, then the vessel owner is liable for not only the cargo owners legal fees but also has to compensate them for any loss of income/profit on their goods. If this is incorrect and you quote the judgement where this has been proved incorrect I will be quite happy to apologise.

 

 

i’m not disputing any of that, your original point was  disputing they would call GA.

 

I said they would, and They did. (I cannot see how they wouldn't call GA myself, as the alternative is accepting blame, and on those stakes thats too big to give up without a fight).

To call GA they need an event and removal of load.

 

They've called it a grounding event, but agree GA needs load removal, i’m not sure Ive seen that, but the event isn't yet over yet... i’m sure lawyers have a flyscreen over that ship watching its every move more than the suez authority are.

 

It’ll be years before we know the outcome, So Lets let the lawyers do the squabbling eh ?

 

[Jonboy]

As cargo was not jettisoned and there was no “Peril” involved I would fight a General Average claim tooth and nail (written as someone who is booking freight for my employer numerous times a month).

 

I am aware that sometimes salvage exercises could result in a claim but as this was in a canal channel, and not a reef or shore it will be extremely interesting to watch it play out.

 

The real fun bit is that often when booking lCL consignments you don’t know precisely what vessel cargo is on unless you ask specifically. Often you get a voyage number or ETA at port and nothing more.

[john new]

17 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

i’m not disputing any of that, your original point was  disputing they would call GA.

 

I said they would, and They did. (I cannot see how they wouldn't call GA myself, as the alternative is accepting blame, and on those stakes thats too big to give up without a fight).

To call GA they need an event and removal of load.

 

They've called it a grounding event, but agree GA needs load removal, i’m not sure Ive seen that, but the event isn't yet over yet... i’m sure lawyers have a flyscreen over that ship watching its every move more than the suez authority are.

 

It’ll be years before we know the outcome, So Lets let the lawyers do the squabbling eh ?

 

Would off loading fuel (even if environmentally controlled) and ballast count as jettisoning load?

[Michael Hodgson]

There was clearly peril involved - the ship might have sunk.  It has certainly been suggested that containers should have been chucked overboard to refloat her, but they seem to have failed/neglected to do so. 

 

I thought General Average was an equitable principle under which the owners of the cargo dumped had to compensate those on the same vessel whose goods were saved by an emergency expedient intended to prevent a total loss.  This doesn't seem applicable here.   I don't see how it extends to losses to those whose goods on board other vessels were delayed because the crew of this vessel failed to drive it in a straight line, though I can see such third parties might be able to argue negligence against the offending vessel.

[adb968008]

59 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

There was clearly peril involved - the ship might have sunk.  It has certainly been suggested that containers should have been chucked overboard to refloat her, but they seem to have failed/neglected to do so. 

 

I thought General Average was an equitable principle under which the owners of the cargo dumped had to compensate those on the same vessel whose goods were saved by an emergency expedient intended to prevent a total loss.  This doesn't seem applicable here.   I don't see how it extends to losses to those whose goods on board other vessels were delayed because the crew of this vessel failed to drive it in a straight line, though I can see such third parties might be able to argue negligence against the offending vessel.

i’m just playing armchair lawyer here but my reading of General Average applies to “Ship, Cargo and Freight” as a joint “venture”...

everyone is in it together.. no them and us.

 

So my guess is any loss / damage / delay to the ship is also part of the venture... and ships owners have executed their duty..

Quote

It is the duty of the assured and his agents, in all cases, to take such measures as may be reasonable for the purpose of averting or minimising a loss.

They saved the ship and cargo.

But the ship is quite definitely delayed, the venture is still in Peril... its upto the Suez Authorities when it leaves, and they suffered revenue loss as well as facilitating salvage...someone in command in Egypt has to sign off that ship & cargo “as a joint venture” leaving.. as once its gone and the cargo separates.. that venture is over and chances of Suez recovering their losses from individual container owners I would imagine becomes quite challenging for them..... having 1 throat to choke in your hand is better than 20k scattered around... i’d imagine they want security first.

 

meanwhile the blame game has yet to start.. was it crew, pilotman, ship, weather, or other factors that lead to the grounding.. whilst thats all speculation.. there is really only 2 outcomes.. was it the fault of the “venture” or the canal operators.

 

i’d speculate the ship maybe be a guest of the canal for a while... which means the delay clause of GA will continue to accrue... of course having lawyers on the ground locally may facilitate some containers unloaded locally and if that happens GA might be said to be fulfilled... so keeping containers tight with the ship is crucial so some, but a tempting opposite for others in the venture.

 

its so much easier in the sky.. just find the guilty party and go after them.

As for consequential losses to unrelated third parties on the seas.. no idea, but if someone causes a traffic jam on a road, can other  road users claim for the consequential delays caused (I.e sue the car crash driver for making others late for work? )... conversely post 1994 UK railways  does seem to be built on that liability using delay minutes. I’m not sure how consequential delays can be claimed.. especially on water in a weather event, other than by Suez who have the leverage of the ship in their lake at their leisure.

 

All speculation.

 

 

 

Edited April 3, 2021 by adb968008

[Tankerman]

8 hours ago, adb968008 said:

i’m not disputing any of that, your original point was  disputing they would call GA.

Hi

I said they would, and They did. (I cannot see how they wouldn't call GA myself, as the alternative is accepting blame, and on those stakes thats too big to give up without a fight).

To call GA they need an event and removal of load.

 

They've called it a grounding event, but agree GA needs load removal, i’m not sure Ive seen that, but the event isn't yet over yet... i’m sure lawyers have a flyscreen over that ship watching its every move more than the suez authority are.

 

It’ll be years before we know the outcome, So Lets let the lawyers do the squabbling eh ?

 

I’m happy to agree with letting the lawyers do the squabbling. They’re well practiced at that and as we have both said, they get paid obscene amounts of money to do it. 

[Michael Hodgson]

The money at direct risk in a shipping accident is the value of the ship plus the value of the cargo.  That's what you normally insure.  If the ship sank on the high seas, it's what the insurance would pay out (eventually) and the insurers would have calculated the probability up front, so whilst it is certainly a big number for a ship this size it would s all be within the normal course of their business.  However it didn't sink, the ship may well be repairable and whilst some of the cargo will have deteriorated and will be unfit for sale much of the cargo should still be good albeit late, so the grounding itself is not that big a deal in insurance terms.   

 

The real problem in the case is whether somebody can be made to stump up for the value of the general disruption to everybody else.  Now that the blockage has been removed, the Canal and the world's ports can begin to get back to normal so at least the potential bill can stop rising.

 

I don't know whose courts will eventually have jurisdiction here.  I assume Egyptian (Islamic?) law applies to the Canal, but I would expect the insurance contract all necessarily include clauses stipulating whose laws they are governed by in case a loss arises outside anybody's territorial waters.    There have been many shipwrecks in the pasts, so there will be precedents going back as far as Captains Noah's Ark sank in the Holy See, as that one was an act of God.  So we can look forward to protracted political arguments between Egypt and the rest of the world's diplomats about jurisdiction for different sorts of loss.    

[Tankerman]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

The money at direct risk in a shipping accident is the value of the ship plus the value of the cargo.  That's what you normally insure.  If the ship sank on the high seas, it's what the insurance would pay out (eventually) and the insurers would have calculated the probability up front, so whilst it is certainly a big number for a ship this size it would s all be within the normal course of their business.  However it didn't sink, the ship may well be repairable and whilst some of the cargo will have deteriorated and will be unfit for sale much of the cargo should still be good albeit late, so the grounding itself is not that big a deal in insurance terms.   

 

The real problem in the case is whether somebody can be made to stump up for the value of the general disruption to everybody else.  Now that the blockage has been removed, the Canal and the world's ports can begin to get back to normal so at least the potential bill can stop rising.

 

I don't know whose courts will eventually have jurisdiction here.  I assume Egyptian (Islamic?) law applies to the Canal, but I would expect the insurance contract all necessarily include clauses stipulating whose laws they are governed by in case a loss arises outside anybody's territorial waters.    There have been many shipwrecks in the pasts, so there will be precedents going back as far as Captains Noah's Ark sank in the Holy See, as that one was an act of God.  So we can look forward to protracted political arguments between Egypt and the rest of the world's diplomats about jurisdiction for different sorts of loss.    

 

From Wikipedia "Admiralty courts assume jurisdiction by virtue of the presence of the vessel in its territorial jurisdiction irrespective of whether the vessel is national or not and whether registered or not, and wherever the residence or domicile or their owners may be. A vessel is usually arrested by the court to retain jurisdiction. State-owned vessels are usually immune from arrest."

[Michael Hodgson]

So a Japanese container full of rotten Sushi insured by an American company for  its trip to Rotterdam on board an Indian vessel that got stuck behind this Taiwanese-owned Panamanian registered ship will have the merits or otherwise of its claim decided by the Grand Mufti in Cairo?

 

You can't handcuff a ship of course ... to arrest a vessel the custom is to nail a notice to her mainmast.  I can see why that might present the odd problem if the vessel happened to be a warship belonging to a foreign navy.

Edited April 3, 2021 by Michael Hodgson

[adb968008]

44 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

So a Japanese container full of rotten Sushi insured by an American company for  its trip to Rotterdam on board an Indian vessel that got stuck behind this Taiwanese-owned Panamanian registered ship will have the merits or otherwise of its claim decided by the Grand Mufti in Cairo?

 

You can't handcuff a ship of course ... to arrest a vessel the custom is to nail a notice to her mainmast.  I can see why that might present the odd problem if the vessel happened to be a warship belonging to a foreign navy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amethyst_Incident
 

an arrest of sorts.

[Michael Hodgson]

Good film that was.

[The Johnster]

An arrest of a naval ship on active service is an act likely to start a war, and on the rare occasions it happens and does not result in a war (a war happened once because a captain got his ear cut off) is dealt with by the diplomatic services of the ship's country.  Merchant ships are something else, and may be detained for all sorts of legitimate reasons including non-payment of fees, a matter for civil not criminal courts.  The Ever Given's owners will have insured their cargo against loss caused by delay, both financial and by spoiling.  There is no 'Grand Mufti' in Egypt, which although an ostensibly Islamic country does not have Sharia law, or an official state religion.  It is the home of many Coptic christians who are led by the only person whose official title is Pope.  Religious violence breaks out occasionally but is not condoned or tolerated by the Egyptian state. 

 

The Amethyst affair took place in a combat zone where two opposing civil war factions were engaged in actual fighting, and the force that fired on the warship had originally done so as a warning to prevent her entering the combat zone.  The ship proceeded under her orders and came under heavy fire in another location; I am sure that her commander understood the risks.  Direct military action was needed to resolve the affair, despite attempts by the British Embassy staff to negotiate a diplomatic solution.  Maintaining neutrality in a war zone is always going to be a problem.  Being of the view that the ship had wilfully ignored their warning volley, which it had, the PLA considered her an antagonist and therefore fired on her, with pretty good gunnery to take the bridge out so quickly on a moving target.

[melmerby]

9 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

So a Japanese container full of rotten Sushi insured by an American company for  its trip to Rotterdam on board an Indian vessel that got stuck behind this Taiwanese-owned Panamanian registered ship will have the merits or otherwise of its claim decided by the Grand Mufti in Cairo?

 

You can't handcuff a ship of course ... to arrest a vessel the custom is to nail a notice to her mainmast.  I can see why that might present the odd problem if the vessel happened to be a warship belonging to a foreign navy.

I think you will find it is Japanese owned*, Taiwanese leased, German operated & Panamanian flagged.

It was built for Evergreen's use for shifting boxes and AFAIK the day to day operations are in the hands of a German company.

Like most major assets these days a lot of ships are on lease to the company whose name is on the side but owned by someone else

 

*The Ever Given is co-owned by Luster Maritime and Higaki Sangyo Kaisha, two companies based in Japan.

[Colin_McLeod]

To link this topic back to railways, NIR got a ship arrested in Coleraine in the 1980s.  About a year prior, the same ship had caused damage to the fenders of the lifting bridge where the railway crosses the river Bann in Coleraine.  Said ship sailed away and failed to respond to any correspondence. 

 

Fast forward 12 months, we got a tip off that the ship was back in Coleraine harbour. Quick instruction to the railway bridge operator not to lift the bridge, ship arrested.  A couple of hours later full compensation was paid to NIR for damage to the railway bridge. Ship released, bridge lifted and ship left for the high seas.

 

RESULT!

[Ian Smeeton]

Someone is a scapegoat!

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-56615521

 

Regards

 

Ian

[johnd]

10 minutes ago, Ian Smeeton said:

Someone is a scapegoat!

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-56615521

 

Regards

 

Ian

Doesn't it say she wasn't on a boat on the canal! Therfore SPOOF news 

[woodenhead]

42 minutes ago, Ian Smeeton said:

Someone is a scapegoat!

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-56615521

 

Regards

 

Ian

That's quite a scary story, someone has gone to a lot of trouble to target her with social media accounts, it would seem because she is a woman in a 'mans' world.

[Ian Smeeton]

3 hours ago, johnd said:

Doesn't it say she wasn't on a boat on the canal! Therfore SPOOF news 

 

3 hours ago, woodenhead said:

That's quite a scary story, someone has gone to a lot of trouble to target her with social media accounts, it would seem because she is a woman in a 'mans' world.

I quite agree.

 

Despicable that she has been blamed for it despite being hundreds of miles away on a completely different type of ship at the time.

 

Regards

 

Ian

 

 

[Oldddudders]

Are we seriously surprised that such a smear is possible in the Middle East? Equal opportunities and human rights are not high on the agenda of every country out there, still less on the minds of the male population. 

[jonny777]

3 hours ago, woodenhead said:

That's quite a scary story, someone has gone to a lot of trouble to target her with social media accounts, it would seem because she is a woman in a 'mans' world.

 

Going completely O/T for a second, it would seem that the Middle East is not the only area to target women with some very dubious tactics.....

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/03/womens-anger-at-abuse-of-power-during-bristol-police-raids

[Compound2632]

12 minutes ago, melmerby said:

In some Islamic countries and in the minds of many muslims not just in those countries women are expected to have babies, keep the house and cook. Nothing else.

 

Before casting stones you should reflect that that was the expectation throughout the West until really very recently.