Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
FRAUDULENT DEVICES—THE MARKET RESPONSE
International Hull Clauses 2003
In response to recent judgments, in particular The Mercandian Continent
1
and The Aegeon
,2
which served to highlight the uncertainties of the law on fraudulent claims (including fraudulent means and devices), the Institute Hull Clauses 2002 (‘‘IHC 2002’’) incorporated express contractual obligations in relation to claims. The very fact that the law is uncertain rendered construction of the IHC 2002 claims provisions open to question. In its 2003 review of the hull clauses (‘‘IHC 2003’’),3
the Joint Hull Committee has made changes which serve to clarify certain issues left in doubt by the 2002 wording.4
1. K/s Merc-Scandia XXXXII
v. Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters and Ocean Marine Insurance Co Ltd and others (The Mercandian Continent)
[2001] EWCA Civ 1275; [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 563.
2. Agapitos
v. Agnew (The Aegeon)
[2002] EWCA Civ 247; [2002] QB 556; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 42.
3. International Hull Clauses (01/11/03), published on 5 November 2003.
4. This writer has previously commented on the IHC 2002 claims provisions: see L. Skajaa, ‘‘International Hull Clauses 2002: a contractual solution to the uncertainty of the fraudulent claims rule?’’ [2003] LMCLQ 279.
LLOYD’S MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL LAW QUARTERLY
140