i-law

Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

PROOF OF WILFUL CASTING AWAY

PROOF OF WILFUL CASTING AWAY

The Ikarian Reefer
The lengthy judgment of the Court of Appeal in The Ikarian Reefer 1 makes no new law but contains an authoritative reminder of the onus and standard of proof applicable to cases in which a shipowner’s claim for a total loss by perils of the sea is met by the insurers’ plea that the insured vessel has been wilfully cast away. The court has also expressed its view of the role of expert evidence in such cases.
The Ikarian Reefer stranded on the shoals of St Ann off the coast of Sierra Leone in April 1985 while on a ballast voyage from Kiel to Abidjan. She was not in immediate danger of sinking since the seabed was composed of soft silt and sand. Efforts to refloat her were unsuccessful. Some two hours after she ran aground, a fire started in the engine room and spread to the accommodation. The crew abandoned ship and were rescued by another vessel. Subsequently, the vessel refloated of her own accord and was boarded by salvors. Inspection of the engine room a few days later revealed that a drain tap on the pipe carrying diesel fuel from the diesel oil settling tank to the generators was open, permitting diesel oil to leak into an area close to the seat of the fire. It was also noted that a valve on the fuel line between the tank and the open tap was fractured, but before a further inspection was made the vessel sank at anchorage off Sierra Leone while awaiting towage to a Spanish scrapyard. Her owners claimed for a constructive total loss. The vessel’s insured value was $3 million, with an agreed market value of $450,000. Underwriters rejected the claim, alleging that the grounding was intentional and that the fire had been started deliberately with the connivance of owners.
The case was tried by Cresswell, J., in the Commercial Court in 1992.2 The trial lasted 82 days, 32 days of which were accounted for by the reception of expert evidence concerning the navigation of the vessel prior to the grounding and the cause of the fire in the engine room. Underwriters conceded that the proximate cause of her becoming a C.T.L. was the fire,3 so that the grounding was not to be regarded as a cause of loss. The accidental or intentional character of the grounding was, however, relevant to a determination of the nature of the fire. Cresswell, J., decided in favour of the owners. Having set out the relevant legal principles, he concluded that the effect of the underwriters’ concession was that one question remained for decision—had they proved,

305

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click Log In button.

Copyright © 2024 Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address 5th Floor, 10 St Bride Street, London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom. Lloyd's List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited.

Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.