A busy shipping lawyer might be forgiven for thinking that the Consumer Protection Act 1987 was one piece of legislation which he could happily ignore while he got on with something more pressing. In fact, he would not be entirely safe if he did. Part I of the Act, which introduces a measure of strict liability affecting producers and distributors of goods, could incidentally affect an appreciable number of maritime claims. As a result, it could be worth a second glance even in the environs of Essex Court.

1. The scheme of the Act

The crux of the matter is s. 2, making the “producer”1 of a defective product liable without proof of fault for any damage resulting from the defect. Since for these purposes “products” include ships,2 there is at least a potential claim under the Act whenever anyone suffers loss or injury because of the defective condition of a ship. Of course, matters are not as simple as this; and the rest of this article attempts to describe when the Act will, and will not, be applicable.

2. Who is liable?

(a) The shipbuilder

Since presumably a shipbuilder is a “producer”, it follows that he may be liable where an accident can be shown to have happened because of some defect in a vessel existing at the time that she was built. An example would be where a structural flaw causes a vessel to break her back in heavy seas and sink, and a crewman is killed. If an example is needed, the facts of The Derbyshire 3 are a case in point. A ship was lost with all hands, apparently because of a defect in construction. In the Court of Appeal, the dependants of the crew failed to recover against her owners under the previous law, it being held that a ship was not “equipment” under the Employer’s Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969. Even if the House of Lords had not reversed that decision, it is submitted that similar plaintiffs would neverthe-