The Admiralty Court clarifies the remit of Article 1(2) “charterer” under the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims

A fire on the container ship X-Press Pearl ultimately led to the sinking of the ship and her cargo. The ship was carrying containers that were subject to a variety of contractual arrangements (a connecting carrier agreement, a fixed slots contract and an agreement for transport services) on behalf of Maersk, Bengal Tiger Line and MSC. In Sea Consortium Pte Ltd (t/a X-Press Feeders) & Ors v Bengal Tiger Line Pte Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 3174 (Admlty), the Admiralty Court considered whether these parties constituted a “charterer” for the purposes of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims in order for a limitation of liability to apply.

The Admiralty Court considered the reasoning in MSC Napoli [2008] EWHC 3002 (Admlty), [2009] 1 Lloyd's Rep 246, and held that it will normally be sufficient for a party to be considered as an Article 1(2) 'charterer' if: (i) “its relevant contract obliges an owner or disponent owner to make part of the carrying capacity of a ship available to that party for the carriage of goods which that party will have contracted, or will be obliged to contract, to undertake as carrier”; or (ii) it is a party “to whom space on a ship is contracted for the performance by it, delegated to the ship, of its contractual obligations as carrier”.

Further reading on the case can be found here.