Maritime law 2
Casualty, liability, limitation, pollution, arrest and settlement
Work saves locally in this browser
Lead-in: the first 24 hours after a casualty
Protect life and the environment, preserve the evidence, and avoid premature conclusions.
Discuss.
- What must the master, the owner and the lawyers do immediately after a collision?
- Why can one casualty produce criminal, regulatory and civil proceedings?
- When might a claimant arrest a ship rather than wait for judgment?
Show possible directions
The order matters: life and safety first, then preventing further damage or pollution, then mandatory reporting, then preserving evidence, then notifying insurers and counterparties, then appointing local and technical advisers, and finally managing security and commercial continuity. The same facts may engage navigational offences, environmental enforcement, a flag or port investigation, employment issues, civil damages, limitation and insurance. Those proceedings have different purposes, different standards and different uses of the same evidence.
Distress response, persons, pollution and stabilisation.
Authorities, insurers, contractual parties and emergency contacts.
VDR, AIS, charts, logs, communications, images and samples.
Survey access, privilege, letters of undertaking and arrest risk.
Forum, applicable regimes, fault, limitation and quantum.
Record what was done, when, and on whose instruction.
Clear notes
Immediate safety and environment action: The master reports that all crew are accounted for and there are no injuries. A small bunker release is being contained. Nothing else matters until that is stable.
Mandatory notifications: Coastal State and port authority, flag administration, and the company DPA. We must check what the local reporting rules require tonight.
Evidence at risk: VDR data (overwrites on a cycle), AIS, radar, ECDIS, the bridge logs, VHF recordings, the pilot card and the weather records. Ask the master to stop the VDR from overwriting now.
Insurers and parties: Hull underwriters, the P and I club, charterers and the other ship’s interests.
Potential forums and security: The other side may seek arrest. We should be ready to offer a letter of undertaking rather than let the ship be detained.
- Puts safety first and says why nothing else proceeds until it is stable.
- Names the evidence that disappears on its own (the VDR cycle), which is the point of the sheet.
- Anticipates arrest before it happens rather than reacting to it.
Command sheet
Immediate safety and environment action: Crew accounted for; no injuries reported; a limited bunker release is being contained. Stability and pollution response take priority over every legal step.
Mandatory notifications: Coastal and port authorities, flag administration, class, and the company DPA. It should be confirmed whether the local regime requires immediate notification in a prescribed form, since a late or defective report can create exposure of its own.
Evidence at risk: VDR and S-VDR data, which may be overwritten unless preserved at once; AIS; radar and ECDIS records; bridge audio; passage plan; VHF recordings; pilot card; weather and visibility data. Preservation should be documented as it is carried out.
Insurers and parties: Hull and machinery underwriters, P and I club, charterers, cargo interests and the other vessel’s interests. Instructions should be confirmed before any surveyor attends.
Potential forums and security: Arrest risk at the next port of call. We should prepare a club letter of undertaking in agreed wording, to be offered without admission. Any limitation question is for later, and should not be raised in correspondence yet.
- Distinguishes what must happen tonight from what belongs to later analysis.
- which may be overwritten unless preserved at once states the risk and the remedy in one clause.
- Notes that preservation should itself be documented, which is what makes it useful as evidence.
Reading 1: collision liability and navigational evidence
Translate the collision rules into an evidence-led liability analysis.
Rules, fault and the electronic record
COLREGs prescribe navigational conduct, including a proper look-out, safe speed, assessment of the risk of collision and action to avoid collision. Their application depends on the encounter: overtaking, head-on, crossing, restricted visibility or another situation. Stand-on does not mean do nothing, and duties can change as the danger develops.
A breach may be powerful evidence, but civil liability still requires the governing law’s analysis of fault, causation and damage. Apportionment, presumptions and recoverable loss are not identical in every jurisdiction.
Investigators and litigators may examine voyage data recorder material, AIS, radar plots, electronic charts, engine and rudder data, bridge audio, logbooks, pilot exchanges, passage plans, weather, visibility and witness evidence. Each source has limits. AIS is not a complete reconstruction, and timestamps, sensor inputs and preservation methods all require verification.
Keep regulatory fact-finding separate from admissions in civil proceedings. A marine safety investigation usually serves preventive purposes, while a court or tribunal decides legal liability.
By sight, hearing and all available means appropriate to the circumstances.
Speed permitting proper and effective avoidance action, and stopping.
Use all available means. Do not act on scanty information.
Reading 2: salvage, towage and general average
Separate related doctrines that allocate different risks.
A qualifying voluntary service to property in danger that contributes to a useful result may earn a reward. Relevant factors include value saved, danger, skill, effort, time, expenses and environmental protection.
Moving or assisting a vessel is usually towage when no qualifying danger exists. A towage contract may allocate risks, but mandatory law and third-party rights still matter.
An extraordinary sacrifice or expenditure intentionally and reasonably made for the common safety may be shared between the maritime interests, subject to the governing rules and adjustment.
Public-law removal duties and civil liability may arise for a wreck posing a navigational or environmental hazard. Convention and domestic scope must be checked.
Reading 3: limitation is not the same as liability
Analyse the claim first, then the right and the amount.
A damages claim and a limitation proceeding
A claimant may establish that a shipowner is liable and still recover less than the full proven loss, because a limitation regime applies. Equally, the existence of a possible limit does not admit liability. The analysis asks who may limit, whether the claim is limitable, which convention and version applies, what tonnage and claim category control the calculation, and whether the right to limit can be broken under the applicable test.
Under LLMC 1976 as amended by the 1996 Protocol, the limits distinguish claims for loss of life or personal injury from other claims, and they are expressed in Special Drawing Rights. A limitation fund can centralise claims and provide security, but the procedure and the legal consequences of constituting a fund depend on the forum and the implementing law.
The conduct that bars limitation is a demanding test. Do not confuse ordinary negligence, gross negligence and the convention wording. Do not quote an SDR amount without checking the applicable instrument, the amendments, the tonnage, the category, the date and the conversion.
Liability, then claimant and defendant, then whether the claim is limitable, then the applicable instrument.
Tonnage and claim category, then the conduct test, then the fund and security.
Never treat a limit as an admission, and never quote a figure without checking what is in force.
Reading 4: pollution liability and compensation
Select the correct regime by substance, source, ship and State participation.
Persistent oil carried as cargo. Channels qualifying pollution liability to the registered shipowner, generally on a strict basis subject to defined exceptions, with compulsory insurance and direct action.
Additional compensation layers where the shipowner layer is unavailable, insufficient or not liable, within treaty conditions and limits.
Pollution damage caused by bunker oil, with insurance and direct-action mechanisms for covered ships.
Hazardous and noxious substances, designed as a two-tier liability and compensation regime. The conditions for entry into force were met on 29 May 2026, and the Convention is due to enter into force on 29 November 2027, so at the time of writing it is not yet in force. State participation still has to be checked case by case.
Preparedness and response: cooperation, reporting and response planning. Not a substitute for civil compensation analysis.
Identify the pollutant, the vessel, the incident location, the claimant loss, the preventive measures, the liable person, the compulsory insurer, the treaty version, the Contracting States and the national implementing law.
Reading 5: marine insurance and P and I
Map the interest, the peril, the cover, the exclusion and the recovery route.
First-party cover for physical loss of or damage to the insured vessel and its machinery, subject to the policy wording, the insured perils, the exclusions and the deductible.
First-party cover for the insured cargo interest. Attachment, duration, insured risks, exclusions, valuation and notice depend on the policy and the governing law.
Protection and indemnity clubs commonly respond to defined third-party liabilities such as crew, cargo, collision, pollution, wreck and fines, subject to club rules and the terms of entry.
War, strikes, terrorism, detention and related risks may be excluded from ordinary cover and placed separately, with trading limits and notice requirements.
A coverage analysis is not a liability analysis
First identify the insured interest and the policy period. Then ask whether the loss was caused by an insured peril, whether an exclusion or warranty is engaged, what deductible and valuation apply, and which notification, cooperation and mitigation duties govern. A liability defence does not necessarily defeat first-party cover, and payment under a policy does not necessarily concede a third party’s legal claim.
After indemnifying the assured, an insurer may pursue recovery through subrogation, subject to the applicable law and the policy. P and I security can facilitate the release of an arrested ship, but the wording, the amount, the governing law and the forum all have to be negotiated. “The club will pay” is never an adequate conclusion without checking entry, rules, calls, deductibles, exclusions, pooling and reinsurance.
Official reading: the IMO Legal Committee in 2026
A current-law reading adapted from the official LEG 113 meeting summary.
Closing gaps in a changing fleet
At its 113th session in April 2026, the IMO Legal Committee approved guidelines intended to improve transparency and due diligence in ship registration. The guidelines respond to fraudulent registration and the misuse of flags by promoting verification of ownership, ship identity and eligibility, quality assurance and information sharing. They are practical guidance, not a new binding registration treaty.
The Committee also concluded that a regulatory gap exists for liability and compensation when alternative fuels used for ship propulsion cause an incident. Ammonia, methanol, hydrogen and other fuels can present risks different from those of traditional oil, and the existing compensation conventions do not necessarily provide a complete answer. The Committee therefore continued work on whether a dedicated regime or amendments are needed.
LEG 113 also reported a serious increase in seafarer-abandonment cases. It urged implementation of existing Maritime Labour Convention protections and of joint ILO and IMO guidance. The legal response can involve the flag State, port and coastal States, the shipowner, the financial-security provider and welfare organisations.
For lawyers, the lesson is methodological. Confirm what is already binding, distinguish guidelines from treaty obligations, identify gaps honestly, and track future work without describing proposals as current law.
IMLI text lab: scholarship, curriculum and legislation
Use institutional texts critically, and distinguish authority from commentary.
From convention to national statute
International uniformity does not eliminate domestic legislative work. A State must determine how its legal system gives effect to treaty obligations, allocates administrative powers, creates offences and penalties, authorises regulations, provides appeals and coordinates existing statutes. Monist and dualist constitutional approaches may differ.
A legislative drafter begins with a treaty-status and gap analysis. Definitions should be consistent, and adapted only where there is a legal reason. Powers must identify who may act, on what grounds and with what safeguards. Inspection, detention, certification, reporting, offences and review should form a coherent enforcement chain.
IMLI’s drafting-project archive is useful for comparative study and drafting technique. Student projects should be evaluated, not cited as though they were enacted legislation or official IMO interpretations.
Listening: arrest, security and release
Advise without confusing procedural security with final liability.
Urgent owner call
A vessel has been arrested over an unpaid bunker invoice and is due to sail tonight. The owner wants to pay and go. Listen to what the lawyer does with that suggestion.
The vessel has been arrested
Listen for the forum, the claim, the security and the reservation, then do Exercise 9a.
Show transcript (Audio 11.1)
Check your answers first. Tap any line to replay it.
Client: The agents tell me the Ocean Amethyst has been arrested over an unpaid bunker invoice. She’s due to sail tonight. Can’t we just pay the claimant?
Lawyer: Not yet. Get me the arrest order, the claim form and the service documents first. We need local counsel to confirm the legal basis, whether the claimant has standing, the arrest jurisdiction, the deadline and the release procedure. Paying now could prejudice your defences and your recovery rights.
Client: So how do we get the ship released?
Lawyer: Usually by putting up acceptable security. A payment into court, a bank guarantee, or a letter of undertaking from your P and I club. The claimant or the court may argue about the form or the amount. Whatever we give, it goes in without admission and on agreed wording.
Client: And the invoice itself? Is that decided there?
Lawyer: Not necessarily. The merits may belong in another court, or in arbitration. We need to check the supply contract, the governing law, the jurisdiction clause, who the contractual buyer actually was, whether there’s a maritime lien or a statutory right in rem, and whether counter-security or limitation comes into it.
Client: Anything else tonight?
Lawyer: Yes. Start preserving the evidence of your commercial loss, and notify the insurers and the charterers now, not next week.
Writing: preliminary collision report to insurers
Present the facts, the uncertainty and the action in a disciplined sequence.
Casualty file: M/V Aurora Vale and M/T North Cape
At 03:18, in restricted visibility, the vessels collided near a traffic-separation scheme. Aurora Vale suffered bow damage. North Cape reports hull damage and a small bunker release. No injury is reported. Both vessels exchanged VHF calls. A pilot was aboard Aurora Vale. The authorities have retained VDR copies. Charterers are asking for admissions about delay. Draft a preliminary report for the instructed insurers, in 250 to 320 words, marked privileged and subject to confirmation that privilege applies.
Time, position, vessels, damage, persons, pollution and operations.
VDR, AIS, radar, ECDIS, logs, VHF, pilot card, weather and witnesses.
Visibility, look-out, speed, risk assessment, manoeuvres, pilotage and causation.
Notifications, survey, preservation, representation, security and reserves.
Report language
This is a preliminary report…
It remains unclear whether…
Completeness and timestamps require verification.
No admission should be inferred.
We propose to instruct…
Subject to confirmation that privilege applies.
Clear, well-ordered report
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE LAW
1. Summary. This is a preliminary report based on presently available information. The vessels collided at 03:18 in restricted visibility near a traffic-separation scheme. It is premature to assess fault.
2. Known facts. Aurora Vale has bow damage. North Cape reports hull damage and a small bunker release. No injury is reported. A pilot was aboard Aurora Vale, and both vessels exchanged VHF calls before the collision. Visibility was reported as poor, and both vessels were in the approaches to the scheme.
3. Evidence status. The authorities have retained VDR copies. We have asked the master to preserve the AIS and radar records, the ECDIS data, the bridge logs and the VHF recordings. Completeness and timestamps still require verification. We have asked the master to keep the original recordings rather than copies, and to note who handled them.
4. Preliminary issues. Visibility, look-out, safe speed, the assessment of risk of collision, the manoeuvres of both vessels, the role of the pilot and causation. The presence of a pilot does not by itself transfer responsibility.
5. Immediate recommendations. Appoint a local surveyor and correspondents; preserve the electronic data before any overwriting; take witness accounts while memories are fresh; and set a reserve once the damage survey is available. The small bunker release may also engage the pollution regime, and we are dealing with that separately. Charterers have asked for admissions about delay. We recommend that no admission be made without further advice. All rights are reserved.
We will report further once the reconstruction and the survey are available.
- Numbered sections let an underwriter find the part they need without reading the whole report.
- Says what is not yet known, which is the professional point of a preliminary report.
- Answers the charterers’ request for admissions directly instead of ignoring it.
- About 257 words of report body, inside the 250 to 320 limit.
Precise, qualified report
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION THAT PRIVILEGE APPLIES
1. Summary. This is a preliminary report on present information. A collision occurred at 03:18 in restricted visibility in the approaches to a traffic-separation scheme. No conclusion on fault can properly be drawn at this stage.
2. Known facts. Aurora Vale, with a pilot aboard, sustained bow damage; North Cape reports hull damage and a limited bunker release. No injuries are reported. VHF exchanges took place, the content and timing of which remain to be established.
3. Evidence status. VDR copies have been retained by the authorities. Steps have been taken to preserve AIS, radar, ECDIS, engine and rudder data, bridge audio, the passage plan and the VHF records. Subject to verification, the completeness and synchronisation of those sources cannot yet be assumed. Copies should be taken in native format, with a record of who downloaded each source and when.
4. Preliminary issues. Compliance with the look-out, safe-speed and risk-assessment rules; the adequacy and timing of avoiding action; the conduct of the navigation while under pilotage; apportionment; and causation of the individual heads of loss. The limited bunker release may engage the pollution regime in parallel, which is being addressed separately. Rule breach and civil causation remain distinct questions.
5. Immediate recommendations. Instruct local correspondents and a surveyor; secure the native electronic data with a documented chain of custody; obtain accounts from the bridge team before recollection fades; and review the arrest and security position at the next port. A reserve should be set once the damage survey is to hand and revisited when the reconstruction is complete. As regards the charterers’ request, no admission should be made, nor should any statement be given to third parties without instructions. All rights are reserved.
A further report will follow once the reconstruction is complete.
- No conclusion on fault can properly be drawn is the register an insurer expects in a first report.
- Separates the rule question from the causation question, which is the analytical trap in collision work.
- nor should any statement be given extends the reservation without a second sentence.
- About 293 words of report body, inside the 250 to 320 limit.
Speaking: without-prejudice casualty meeting
Negotiate security and an investigation protocol without deciding liability.
Seek prompt security for repair, business interruption and pollution response. Request joint expert access and a timetable.
Offer proportionate security without admission, challenge unsupported heads of claim, and propose evidence-sharing safeguards.
Was security discussed separately from liability? Was every figure tied to a document? Did either side concede something that should have been reserved?
Bullet-point note
Participants and authority: The terminal’s lawyer and their insurer, and for us the owner, the P and I club and me. Everyone present had authority to discuss but not to settle.
Security offered or requested: They asked for security for repairs, business interruption and the pollution response. We offered a club letter of undertaking in agreed wording, without admitting liability.
Evidence protocol: A joint survey, with coordinated access for both experts. Neither side removes anything from the site alone.
Quantum documents: We asked them to provide a documented breakdown. The business-interruption figure is not supported yet.
Reservations and next deadline: Everything is subject to contract and agreed wording. They reply on the quantum breakdown by Friday.
- Records who could actually agree to what, which is the first thing to note in a meeting.
- Ties the security offer to the words that protect it (without admitting).
- Ends with one deadline and one owner of the next step.
Without-prejudice meeting note
Participants and authority: Held without prejudice. It was made clear at the outset that those attending had authority to negotiate but not to bind, and that nothing said would be treated as an admission.
Security offered or requested: The claimant sought security covering repair costs, business interruption and pollution-response expenditure. We indicated a willingness to provide a club letter of undertaking in agreed wording and in a proportionate amount, the quantum of which remains to be justified.
Evidence protocol: Joint expert access, coordinated attendance, and no removal or testing of material save by agreement or on notice. It was agreed in principle that the electronic data would be preserved in native form.
Quantum documents: A documented breakdown was requested. Neither the interruption claim nor the response costs is presently vouched, and we reserved our position on both.
Reservations and next deadline: All discussions were without prejudice and subject to contract. Nothing in this note should be read as an acceptance of any head of claim. The claimant is to revert with the breakdown by close of business on Friday.
- Opens by recording the basis of the meeting, which is what makes the rest of the note safe to write.
- the quantum of which remains to be justified concedes willingness without conceding the figure.
- Closes by stating what the note is not, which protects the client if it is ever read by someone else.
End of Maritime Law 2
The course closes with a final test.
Teacher’s answer key
Answers, models, acceptable alternatives and teaching notes.
Chapter 11 answer key
Teaching priorities
- CodesTwo different codes. This answer key uses 0880 and stays with you. The model answers use 1234, which you can give to learners: one entry opens all three sets of models (command sheet, collision report and meeting note), and the Lock button hides them again. Each task has a B2 and a C1 model with legal vocabulary, sentence starters and grammatical structures underlined.
- First responseImmediate hierarchy: life and safety; prevent further damage and pollution; comply with mandatory reporting; preserve evidence; notify insurers and counterparties; appoint local and technical advisers; manage security and commercial continuity. Learners must never advise alteration or concealment of records, and privilege, confidentiality, disclosure and self-reporting depend on the forum.
- CollisionCOLREG labels are not a substitute for encounter analysis. A stand-on vessel has continuing duties. Electronic evidence must be preserved and validated: AIS may contain gaps, wrong manual inputs or technical limitations.
- Salvage and general averageDanger and voluntariness distinguish salvage from ordinary towage. General average concerns contribution between maritime interests and is not a finding of fault. Wreck-removal duties may be public-law obligations supported by compulsory insurance.
- Limitation methodEstablish liability separately; identify the entitled person and the claim; verify the convention version and domestic implementation; classify the claim; obtain verified tonnage; calculate in SDR; assess the conduct test; then consider the fund, release and the effect of concursus. For reference, the conduct that bars limitation under LLMC Article 4 is loss resulting from the person’s personal act or omission, committed with intent to cause such loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result. Keep that wording for yourself: the exercise asks learners to notice that the test is demanding, not to recite it. Do not use the IMO webpage figures without checking whether the 1996 Protocol and the 2012 amendments apply in the relevant State and on the incident date.
- Marine insuranceSection 6 is the risk-transfer layer between liability and enforcement. Insist on the order: identify the insured interest and policy period, then the insured peril, then exclusions and warranties, then deductible and valuation, then the notification and mitigation duties. Two traps to drill: a liability defence does not necessarily defeat first-party cover, and payment under a policy does not concede a third party’s claim. “The club will pay” is never an answer without checking entry, rules, calls, deductibles, exclusions, pooling and reinsurance.
- Pollution matrixSubstance and source, then the liable channel, then the standard and exceptions, then compulsory security and direct action, then first and second tier, then geographic scope, then covered loss and preventive measures, then limitation, then State participation. On HNS, check current entry-into-force status rather than assuming a universal regime.
Educational material based on teacher-supplied pages. Verify current law, terminology and local procedure before relying on any legal proposition.