Herculito Maritime Ltd & Ors v Gunvor International BV & Ors [2024] UKSC 2 (17 January 2024)
Citation:Herculito Maritime Ltd & Ors v Gunvor International BV & Ors [2024] UKSC 2 (17 January 2024)
Rule of thumb: If a cargo ship being rented by a charterparty is taken over by pirates, & the shipowner pays the ransom to the pirates, what insurer is liable for the ransom? The 3 insurers of the sender, boat-owner, & sailor (renting boat) are all jointly liable. If there is a clause apportioning % this will apply so it is not necessarily all parties with 33% liability for the ransom sum.
Background facts: This case in the subject of maritime/shipping law. It was on the subject of ‘Gulf of Aden’ Clauses & ‘War Risk’ clauses.
The basic facts of this case were that Herculito owned a ship. They rented this ship out Guvnor. Guvnor then filled their ship up with fuel oil & were transporting it across the sea. However, Somali Pirates then took over the ship. The Pirates held the for 10 months. Eventually the shipowner Herculito agreed to $7.7m in the ransom fee sought by the pirates. The shipowner Herculito sought to get $5.9m of this from Guvnor who were hiring the ship. Guvnor argued that they were not liable.
This debate basically boiled down to an interpretation of the ‘Voyage charter’ contract agreed between the parties & the part related to acts of piracy. It was held by the Court that on the proper interpretation of the charter contact that Guvnor indeed owed $5.9 of the ransom sum.
Court held: This debate basically boiled down to a consideration of the treaties as well as an interpretation of the ‘Voyage charter’ contract agreed between the parties & the part related to acts of piracy. It was held by the Court that on the proper interpretation of the charter contact that the default position was that all 3 parties owed the sum jointly, but the ‘Gulf of Aden’ clause relating to this apportioning liability also applied, so this adjusted how much each insurer owed.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘99. For all the reasons set out above, I conclude that: (1) on the proper interpretation of the voyage charter, and in particular the war risk clauses and the additional Gulf of Aden clause, the shipowner was not precluded from claiming against the charterer in respect of losses arising out of risks for which additional insurance had been obtained pursuant to those clauses; (2) all material parts of those clauses were incorporated into the bills of lading; (3) on the proper interpretation of those clauses in the bill of lading the shipowner was not precluded from claiming for such losses against the bill of lading holders; (4) the wording of those clauses should not be manipulated so as to substitute the words "the Charterers" with "the holders of the bill of lading" in the parts of the those clauses allocating responsibility for the payment of the additional insurance premia.
100. Since the shipowner succeeds on Issues (1), (3) and (4), it follows that the appeal must be dismissed’.
Lord Hamblen at 99-100
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.