Maritime Law 《海商法》英文課件2

MaritimeLaw

《海商法》英文課件（2）

（6-10章）

CONTENTSCHAPTER1AdmiraltyJurisdictionandMaritimeLawCHAPTER2ShipsanditsRightsinRemCHAPTER3ContractofCarriageofGoodsbySeaCHAPTER4BillsofLadingCHAPTER5CharterpartiesCHAPTER6CollisionsCHAPTER7SalvageCHAPTER8Towage

CHAPTER9GeneralAverageCHAPTER10LimitationofLiability

CHAPTER6CollisionsContents:IntroductionTypesofcollisionThedivideddamagesruleArrestofShipsIntroductionDefinitionofcollsionLossordamagecausedwithoutactualcontactDefinitionofcollsionArticle165,MCCollisionofshipsmeansanaccidentarisingfromthetouchingofshipsatseaorinothernavigablewatersadjacentthereto.Shipsreferredtointheprecedingparagraphshallincludethosenon-militaryorpublicserviceshipsorcraftthatcollidewiththeshipsmentionedinArticle3ofthisCode.LossordamagecausedwithoutactualcontactWrightv.Brown

collisionmeanstheimpactoftwovesselsbothmoving，andisdistinguishedfromallision，whichdesignatesthestrikingofamovingvesselagainstonethatisstationary.Butinabroadsense，collisionisused，toincludeallision，andperhapsotherspeciesofencountersbetweenvessels，andbetweenavesselandotherfloating，thoughnon—navigable,object．Insomecourtstheterm“allision”usedinabroadersensetoincludethecontactsofmovingvesselsnotonlywithstationaryvesselsorotherfloatingstructures，butalsowithpiers，wharves，bridgesandothershoresideinstallations．Inevitableaccident“Inevitableaccident”hasbeendefinedasacollisionwhichapartycouldnotpossiblypreventbytheexerciseofordinarycare，cautionandmaritimeskill．

Acaseinpoint:TheFamesRiverTransportlnc.v.Nasenbulk

TwoshipswerelyingatanchorinanchoragepositionsdesignatedbytheharbourauthorityinSasebo，Japan．Duringa56-knottyphoontheshipscollidedafterdraggingtheiranchors．Itwasheldthatneithershipwasatfault，andeachshouldbearitsowndamages．OnevesselistoblameWheredamageresultswhollyfromthenegligenceofoneshipshewillbeliableforallliabilitiesarisingfromthecollision.BothvesselsaretoblameBothvesselsaretoblameanddegreeoffaultcanbeapportionedBothvesselsaretoblamebutthedegreeoffaultcannotbedeterminedDaviesvMann(1842)10M&W546Theownerofadonkey,whichhadbeennegligentlylefthobbledandunguardedonahighway,suedthedefendant，bythenegligenceofwhoseservantindrivingalongthehighwayattoorapidaspeedthedonkeywasrunoverandinjured.

Multiplecollisionsituations

Acommonoccurrenceisthemultiplecollisionsituation,oraslightvariationofthiswhereunderathirdvesselmightbeforcedthroughthenegligenceoftwoothervesselsincollisiontotakeevasiveactionwhich,combinedpossiblywithadditionalnegligenceonherpart，resultsindamageorlosstoherselfeitherby,forexample,goingagroundorbycomingintocontactwithpropertybelongingtoyetanotherpartysuchasaharbourwallorapierorwharf.Accordingtolaw,itexpresslyallowsfortheapportionmentoffaultwherelossordamageiscausedtooneormorevesselsasaresultofthefaultoftwoormorevessels．TheOldekerk[1974]lLloyd’sRep．95AmultiplecollisiontookplaceintheNieuweMaasareaofRotterdaminOctober1969.TheshipsinvolvedweretheBelgianvesselAnvers，theDutchvesselOldekerkandtheSouthAmericanvesselPerija,allmotorvessels．Allthreeshipshadpilotsonboard.TheAnverswasmovingupriveronthesouthside，thePerijawasgoingdownriveronthenorthsideandtheOldekerk,withoutherownmotivepower,wasbeingtowedbyatugfromasouthsideberthtoanorthsideberthfurtherdownstream.Herintentionto1eavetheberthwascommunicatedviashoreradartransmittertotheothertwoships.Sheindicatedthatshewasleavingtheberthandwouldbeproceedingtoport.Accordingly,Anversproceededathalfspeedalteringslightlytoport．Next,thetowropespartedandOldekerkwentacrosstheriveratsomespeed.TheAnvershitherandthenbothOldekerkandAnverscollidedwithPerija.TheownersofOldekerkadmittedliabilitybutsoughtandobtainedadecreetolimittheirliabilityonthebasisthattheaccidenthadoccurredwithouttheiractualfaultorprivity．ThismadeitrelevantfortheownersofthePerijatotrytoestablishthepartialfaultoftheAnverswhichtheyattemptedtodobyallegingthattheAnvershadfailedtostopherengineswhenitwasclearthattheOldekerkwasnotholdingbackbutcomingoutintotheriver,hadfailedtokeeptoherownsideoftheriver，hadfailedtoputherengines‘fullastern’earlyenoughandfinallyhadfailedtoletdropheranchors．Thedivideddamagesrule1.Collisioninvolvingdamagetoshiponly2.Collisioninvolvingshipandcargodamagedonly3.Collisioninvolvingshipandcargodamagedandlossoflifeandpersonalinjurytocrew.ArrestofShipsThedefinitionof“arrest”Thepurposeof“arrest”Procedureforanactionof“arrest”AlternativeshiparrestTheendof“arrest”Thedefinitionof“arrest”Thedefinitionof“arrest”intheConventionisthedetentionofashipbyjudicialprocesstosecureamaritimeclaim,butdoesnotincludetheseizureofashipinexecutionorsatisfactionofajudgement.Thepurposeof“arrest”(i)Toobtainsecurityforamaritimeclaim,and(ii)Tosecurethedefendant’sappearanceand/ortotheadmiraltyjurisdictionAlternativeshiparrestThe1952ArrestConventionintroducedAlternativeshiparrest.Themaindifferencebetweenarrestingtheoffendingshipandthealternativeshipisthattherelevantpersonwhentheactionisbrought(inremclaimformissued)mustbethebeneficialowneroftheshipbeingarrested．CaseinpointTheSpanTerza(1982)Theshipownershadaclaimarisingoutofthetime—charteroftheirship．TheyarrestedtheSpanTerza，ashipwhichwasownedbythetime—charterers．

Question:1.Wasthearrestheldgoodornot?andwhy?

Theendof“arrest”SecurityBailbondPaymentintocourtBankguaranteeP&IClubguaranteeChapterSevenSalvage

ContentsTheprinciplesofsalvageTheobjectsofsalvageElementsof“PureSalvage”ClaimsMisconductofSalvorsSalvageAwardsSalvageunderContractTheprinciplesofsalvage

Salvageisthereforequitedifferentfromrestitution.Itinvolvesanentitlementtoareward：muchmorethanmerereimbursementofexpenses．Ithastobesharplydistinguished．Salvageisapeculiarityofmaritimelaw．Itcanneverapplyawayfromthesea．TheobjectsofsalvageMaritimepropertyLifesalvageMaritimepropertyVessel(herapparel)Cargo(maritimecharacteristic)Freight(atrisk)Caseinpoint:TheGasFloatWhitton(No.2)(1897)Alightship,shapedlikeaboat,containingalargegastankfuellingalight,designedformooringintidalwaters,andwithherlightlitbynightasanaidfornavigation,brokefromhermooringswhileintheprocessofbeingmovedinatidalpartoftheHumberandwasrecovered.Nosalvagerewardwaspayable.LifesalvageLifesalvageindependentofpropertyisarareoccurrenceandreportedcasesthiscenturyarealmost,ifnotentirely,non—existent.Where,however,asisusuallythecase，lifeandpropertyaresavedinoneandthesameoperation．itisthecustomandpracticetoawardagreaterremunerationthanifpropertyalonehadbeensaved.Iftherehasbeensavingoflifeatsomepointoftimeinthesalvageoperation,thenshipand／orcargo-ownersasownersofthesalvedpropertiesmayfindthemselvesliabletopaylifesalvage，butwherelifeonlyissavedthereisnobindinglegalobligation.Perhapsasecondaryreasonfortherebeingnolegalobligationisthatthesavingofhumanlifeshouldnotneedfinancialincentive.Itshouldbeinstinctiveinallhumanbeingswhobehavereasonably.ThatthereisnoremunerationlegallypayableforthesavingofhumanlifeisconfirmedbytheInternationalConventiononSalvagel989whichhastheforceoflawintheUnitedKingdom(seesection224oftheMerchantShippingAct1995)．Thisdoesnotapplylegallytosalvageoperationsbefore1Januaryl995．However，underPartIIincertaincircumstancestheSecretaryofStatemaypayforlifesalvageinUKwaters．TheConventiondoescountenancetheenhancingofarewardmadeforsavingpropertyorforpreservingtheenvironmentiflifehasbeensavedinthesameoveralloperation．

ThedutyonMasterstorenderassistancetoanypersonindangerofbeinglostatsea，withinthelimitsofnotendangeringhisownvesselandpersonsthereon,is,notsurprisingly,preservedbyArticlel0oftheConvention．Caseinpoint:TheHelmsman(1950)84L1.L.Rep．207AtankerlayalongsideasteamshipwhichwasinturnmooredalongsideawharfontheTyne.Theformerwastransferringoiltothelatter.Thesteamship’smooringsbrokeandbothshipsdriftedacrosstheriveratthemercyofthetideandagaleforcewind.Withtheaidoftugstheshipswerere—berthed.Thesteamshippaidsalvagebutitwasdisputedthatthetankerhadeverbeenindanger．statedbyonecourt“standingbyorescortingadistressedshipinapositiontogiveaidifitbecomesnecessary,givinginformationonthechanneltofollow...toavoidrunningaground,[and]carryingamessageasaresultofwhichnecessaryaidandequipmentareforthcominghaveallqualified.”A“distinguishable”injury“issometypeofdamagecausedbythesalvortothesalvedvesselotherthanthatwhichshewouldhavesufferedhadsalvageeffortsnotbeenundertakentoextricateherfromtheperilstowhichshewasexposed.”

SalvageAwardsFactorsconsideredindeterminingasalvageaward:(1)thelaborexpendedbythesalvorsinrenderingthesalvageservice;(2)thepromptitude,skill,andenergydisplayedinrenderingtheserviceandsavingtheproperty;(3)thevalueofthepropertyemployedbythesalvorsinrenderingtheserviceandthedegreeofdangertowhichsuchpropertywasexposed;(4)theriskincurredbythesalvorsinsecuringthepropertyfromtheimpendingperil;(5)thevalueofthesavedproperty;and(6)thedegreeofdangerfromwhichthepropertywasrescued.The‘‘Glengyle’’(1898)78L.T.801TheGlengylecameintocollisionwithanothervesselwhilepassingthroughtheStraitsofGibraltar.TwosalvagesteamersspeciallybuiltforandemployedinsalvageservicesimmediatelyproceededfromGibraltar,andsavedherfromcertaintotalloss.Thevalueofthesalvedvesselwas￡76,596,andthevaluesofthesteamerswere￡20,000and￡22,000.However,asalvageawardof￡19,000wouldbemade．SalvageunderContractFirst,thereistheagreemententeredintobythemasterofashipindanger,underthestressofcircumstance．Secondly,thereistheagreementbetweentheownersandaprofessionalsalvageoutfitaftertheimmediatedangerhaspassed,toraiseorrefloatasunkenorstrandedshiportosalvageitscargo.ChapterEightTowage

Contents:TowageContractsDutiesofTugDutiesofTowLiabilitiesoftheTugandtheTowtoThirdPartiesTowageContractsDefinitionTowagecontractsandcontractsofaffreightment

Article155

Acontractofseatowageisacontractwherebythetugownerundertakestotowanobjectbyseawithatugfromoneplacetoanotherandthetowpartypaysthetowage.Towagecontractsandcontractsofaffreightment

Atowagecontractinvolvesanundertakingbyonepartytomoveanotherparty’svessel(suchasabarge)orstructurefromoneplacetoanother.

Acontractofaffreightmentessentiallyisanundertakingbyonepartytotransportcargofromoneplacetoanother.

DutiesofTugProvideaseaworthyvesselwithaqualifiedmasterandcrewHaveproperlightingandmustobeyallnavigationalrulesoftheroadMaintainawatchoverthetowduringitsvoyageTosavethetowfromsinkingifpossibleTheUndaunted(1886)TheKnightCommanderwastowingtheUndauntedfromLeHavretoSwanseawhenherbunkersgotlow.Shecastoffthetowandranforportforcoal.Shelaterreturnedandcompletedthetowage.TheUndaunteddockedfivedayslate.TheownersoftheKnightCommanderwereliabletopayfivedaysdemurragebywayofdamages．Atugwithinsufficientcoalaboardtocompletethetowisnotanefficienttug．DutiesofTowdiscloseallinformationrelevantprovidingaseaworthyvesselproperlymanned

TheAldora[1975]1Lloyd’sRep．617A10,500一tonvesselloadedwithfullcargoofaluminumoreinbulkwentagroundonasandbankinFebruary1972．Shesustaineddamagetoherbottomplates.Fourtugswenttoherassistanceandaharbourpilotboarded.Therewasanagreementthatattemptsshouldbemadetorefloather.Withtugassistanceandunderthedirectionofthepilot.ThevesselwasquicklyrefloatedandsubsequentlytowedupchanneltoabuoytoawaitpermissiontoenterBlythharbour.Legalactionwastakenbythetug—ownersandthepilotclaimingsalvageservices．

Questions?1.whereandwhendidsalvageserviceterminate?2.whetherinterestcouldbeclaimed?

LiabilitiesoftheTugandtheTowtoThirdPartiesWhereathirdpartyseeksrecoveryagainsteitherthetug,tow,orbothforlossofcargo,personalinjury,ordamagetoothervessels,eachvesselwillbeheldliablefordamagesinproportiontoitsindividualdegreeoffault.Ifdamageiscausedbyatowedvessel,thecourtswillapplythetheoryof“thedominantmind”toshiftliabilityforthedamagefromthetowtothetug,whichwasactuallyincontrolofthetow.However,thattheorymaybeovercomeifthetugcanpresentevidencethatthedamagewasinfactthefaultofthetow.Thenegligenceofthetugcannotbeattributedtothetowunderatowagecontractbetweenaseparatelyownedtugandtow.Therefore,aninnocenttowcannotbeheldliablefordamagescausedbythetug.

The“Niobe”(1988)59L.T.257TheNiobewasbeingtowedbythetugFlyingSerpentunderatowagecontract.BothvesselscollidedwiththeValetta，buttheonlydamagetotheValettawascausedbytheFlyingSerpent．Therewasabadlook-outontheNiobe,andifthoseonboardherhadseentheValettaapproaching,orderscouldhavebeengiventotheFlyingSerpentandthecollisionwouldhavebeenavoided.TheownersoftheNiobecontendedthattheywerenotresponsibleforthenegligenceofthoseonboardtheFlyingSerpent,fortheywerenottheirservantsbutwereindependentcontractors．ChapterNineGeneralAverageContents:IntroductionTheGeneralAverageLoss:RequirementsTheYork-AntwerpRulesTheNewJasonClauseTheGeneralAverageStatementIntroductionDefinitionTypesofAverageParticularAverageGeneralAverageDefinitionArticle193Generalaveragemeanstheextraordinarysacrificeorexpenditureintentionallyandreasonablymadeorincurredforthecommonsafetyforthepurposeofpreservingfromperiltheship,goodsorotherpropertyinvolvedinacommonmaritimeadventure.

TypesofAverage“Average”isatermofartinshippingandmarineinsurance．Itmeans“l(fā)oss”andinthemain,thelosswillinthefirstinstanceliewhereitfalls.Ifashipperlosespartofthecargo,hemustbeartheloss；hewillthenmakeaclaimonaninsurancepolicy,ifhehasone，andlaterhe,orhisinsureractingthroughhissubrogationpowersmaymakeaclaimintortorcontractagainstsomethirdparty．Thatis“particularaverage.”TheGeneralAverageLoss:RequirementsHistorically,threefactorsshouldbeestablished:

therewasimminent,commondangerorperil;therewasavoluntaryjettisonoftheclaimant’sportionofthejointventureforthepurposeofavoidingperil;andtheattempttoavoidtheperilwassuccessful.Caseinpoint:AustralianCoastalShippingCommissionvGreen[1971]IQB456,CAThemotorvessel，theBulwarra,wasfullyladenandmooredwhenaviolentstormarose.TheshipowneremployedatugtocometotheaidoftheBulwarra.Thetugwasretainedonthebasisofanindemnitybytheshipownertothetugownerforanydamageorlosstothetug.ThetugtowedtheBulwarraforabout10minutesbeforethetowlinepartedandwrappeditselfaroundthetug’spropeller.ThetugwasatotallossbuttheBulwarragottosafety.Thetugownersclaimedundertheindemnitydespitethetugbeinglostbytheirownnegligence．Thetugownersclaimedtheamounttheyhadtopayforsalvageundertheirindemnity.Question?1.Whetherwasthepaymentsmadebytheshipownerstothetugownersundertheindemnitiesweregeneralaveragelosses?1.whatisageneralaverageact?

RuleAoftheYork-AntwerpRules:Thereisageneralaverageact,when，andonlywhen。anyextraordinarysacrificeorexpenditureisintentionallyandreasonablymadeorincurredforthecommonsafetyforthepurposeofpreservingfromperilthepropertyinvolvedinacommonmaritimeadventure．2.whatlossesmaybeclaimedingeneralaverage?RuleCProvidesthatonlylosses，damagesandexpenseswhichare‘thedirectconsequenceofthegeneralaverageactshallbeallowedasgeneralaverage’TheYork-AntwerpRulesTherulesongeneralaveragehavebeen“codified”intheformofvariousversionsoftheYork–AntwerpRules.Therulesconsistofbothletteredrulesandnumberedrules.Theletteredrulesaremoregeneralandrequiresomeinterpretation,whereasthenumberedrulesarefactspecific.Whereanumberedruleisapplicabletoaparticularsituation,itwillbeappliedwithoutregardtoanyoftheletteredrules.TheYork–AntwerpRulesaregenerallyinsertedintobillsofladingandcharterpartiesandgiveneffectbythecourts.Therulesareadoptedbypartiesonavoluntarybasis.TheNewJasonClause

Atonetimeacarrierhadnorighttoageneralaveragecontributionwheretheperilnecessitatingthesacrificeorexpensearosethroughitsfault.However,anagreementbetweenthecarrierandthecargointerestscanmodifythisresult.Consequently,mostbillsofladingandothercontractsofcarriagecontainaclausedesignatedasa“Jason”or“NewJason”clausethatprovidesthatacarrierisentitledtoageneralaveragecontributionevenwhenoccasionedbyitsfault,ifunderthosecircumstancesitisabsolvedfromliabilitybylaworcontract.TheGeneralAverageStatementAccordingtoYork–AntwerpRuleG,generalaverageiscalculatedonthebasisofthevalueatthetimeandplaceofthecompletionofthevoyage.Iftheentireventureislost,thereisnogeneralaveragecontribution.Usuallygeneralaveragestatementsarepreparedbyagentsofshipownersreferredtoas“averageadjusters.”ageneralaveragestatementpreparedbyaprofessionalaverageadjusteriswithoutanylegaleffectwhatsoeverandisopentoquestionineveryparticular.“themechanicsofapportionment”：“Thevalueofeachofthecontributinginterestsismultipliedbyafractionwhichhasasitsnumeratorthesumofthegeneralaverageexpenseandhasasitsdenominatorthesumofthecontributingvalues”ChapterTenLimitationofLiabilityContents:IntroductionPracticeandprocedureThelimitationfundPartiesentitledtolimitVesselsentitledtolimitBreakingthelimitsClaimssubjecttolimitationChoiceoflawIntroductionOneoftheuniquefeaturesofmaritimelawistheshipowner’srighttolimithisliabilityforlossordamageresultingfromnegligentnavigationormanagementofhisvessel.0riginatinginthenineteenthcentury,thelimitationruleisoneofthefirstexamplesofprotectionismintheformofstatesupportfortheshippingindustry．Itsretentionatthepresentday,isjustifiednotsomuchonitshistoryasonitsprovidingtheshipownerwithacalculableriskbeforeembarkingonatradingventure．PracticeandprocedureToinitiatealimitationproceeding,ashipownermustfileacomplaintwithinsixmonthsofitsreceiptofaclaiminwriting.Itisnotthedateofthecasualtythatiscontrolling,butthedatetheshipownerreceivesnoticeofaclaim.Thecomplaintmayseek“exoneration”aswellaslimitationofliability—thatis,theownermaypleadthatitisnotliableatall,andinthealternativethatifitisliableitisentitledtolimititsliabilityasprovidedintheLimitationAct.Uponfilingacomplaintforlimitation,theownerofthevesselmust“depositwiththecourt,forthebenefitofclaimants,asumequaltotheamountorvalueoftheowner’sinterestinthevesselandpendingfreight.”

Thelimitationfund

Article214Wherealimitationfundhasbeenconstitutedbyapersonliable,anypersonhavingmadeaclaimagainstthepersonliablemaynotexerciseanyrightagainstanyassetsofthepersonliable.Whereanyshiporotherpropertybelongingtothepersonconstitutingthefundhasbeenarrestedorattached,or,whereasecurityhasbeenprovidedbysuchperson,thecourtshallorderwithoutdelaythereleaseoftheshiparrestedorthepropertyattachedorthereturnofthesecurityprovided.StoomvartMaatschappijMedertandvP&OSteamNavigationCo(1882)7AppCas876,HLTwoshipscollidedandtheownerofonebroughtanactioninremagainsttheowneroftheotherwhointurncounter—claimed.Bothshipsweretoblame.Theownersofoneshiplimitedtheirliabilityandpaidtherequisiteamountintocourt.Thedamagetotheothershipwasgreaterandthefunddepositedincourtwasinsufficienttosatisfyalltheclaimsforwhichtheownersoftheothershipwereresponsible．GlaholmvBarker(1866)LR2Eq598Thiscaseconcernedthedeathofseveralcrewmembersofoneshipcausedbythefaultoftheownersofanothervessel.ProceedingswereinstitutedundertheprovisionsoftheMerchantShippingActbythevesselatfaulttolimitherliability．ClaimsexceptedfromlimitationArticle208TheprovisionsofthisChaptershallnotbeapplicabletothefollowingclaims:(1)Claimsforsalvagepaymentorcontributioningeneralaverage;(2)ClaimsforoilpollutiondamageundertheInternationalConventiononCivilLiabilityforOilPollutionDamagetowhichthePeople'sRepublicofChinaisaparty;(3)ClaimsfornucleardamageundertheInternationalConventiononLimitationofLiabilityforNuclearDamagetowhichthePeople'sRepublicofChinaisaparty;(4)Claimsagainsttheshipownerofanuclearshipfornucleardamage;(5)Claimsbytheservantsoftheshipownerorsalvor,ifunderthelawgoverningthecontractofemployment,theshipownerorsalvorisnotentitledtolimithisliabilityorifheisbysuchlawonlypermittedtolimithisliabilitytoanamountgreaterthanthatprovidedforinthisChapter.

Caseinpoint:TheBreydonMerchant[1992]1Lloyd'sRep.373ThevesselBreydonMerchantsufferedaseriousfireinherengineroomandsalvorswereengaged.Theshipownerssoughtadecreelimitingtheirliabilityunderthe1976Convention.Cargoownersarguedthatthevesselwasunseaworthyandtheirclaimfordamages,includingasalvagecontribution,wasnotsubjecttolimitationbecausesalvageclaimswereexcludedbyArticle3.PartiesentitledtolimitArticle204ShipownersandsalvorsmaylimittheirliabilityinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthisChapterforclaimssetoutinArticle207ofthisCode.Theshipownersreferredtointheprecedingparagraphshallincludethechartererandtheoperatorofaship.

Vesselsentitledtolimit

shipswithagrosstonnagerangingfrom300to500tons

Breakingthelimits'actualfaultorprivity’

Caseinpoint:TheLadyGwendolen[1965]1Loyd’sRep.335TheLadyGwendolen,ownedbyArthurGuinness,brewersofstout,collidedthroughexcessivespeedinfogandpooruseofradar.ThedailyresponsibilityofadvisingandcontrollingCaptainMeredith,themaster,laywithMr.Robbie,theMarineSuperintendent.whowasclearlyatfault.HereportedtoMr.Boucher,theTrafficManager,arailwaysexpert,whointurnreportedtoMr.Williams,aDirector,whowasabrewer.ThecourtheldMr.Bouchertohavebeenatfaultinsupervisingthosebelowhim:hiswasthefaultofthecompany,hebeingaproperdelegate.TheMarion[1984]2Lloyd’sRep.1TheMarionfouledanoilpipeline.Shewasinadequatelyprovidedwithaccuratecharts.ShewasownedbyGrandChampionTankersLtd.,buthermanagementhadbeenwhollyhandedovertoFairfield-MaxwellServicesLtd.,amanagementcompany.Thefaultoftheownerslayinthefaultysystem,andinthefaultysupervisionofthatsystem,establishedbythemanagementcompanyforcheckingonthenavigationoftheship.Claimssubjecttolimitation(a)claimsinrespectoflossoflifeorpersonalinjuryorlossofordamagetoproperty.(includingdamagetoharbourworks,basinsandwaterwaysandaidstonavigation),occurringonboardorindirectconnexionwiththeoperationoftheshiporwithsalvageoperations,andconsequentiallossresultingtherefrom;(b)claimsinrespectoflossresultingfromdelayinthecarriagebyseaofcargo,passengersortheirluggage;(c)claimsinrespectof