We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By continuing to use the website, you consent to our use of cookies. Close

PASSAGE PLANNING AND UNSEAWORTHINESS

Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

PASSAGE PLANNING AND UNSEAWORTHINESS

Stephen Girvin*

The CMA CGM Libra
For almost 600 years,1 shipowners have warranted absolutely that their vessels are seaworthy.2 This was later formulated in the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules as an obligation to exercise “due diligence” to provide a seaworthy vessel.3 Although the appeal in The CMA CGM Libra 4 was considered “straightforward”,5 the decision was keenly awaited. The maritime community did not have long to wait: a very strong Court of Appeal handed down judgment6 a fortnight after the conclusion of the hearing.7
Fundamental to the case was the well-known test laid down by Channell J in McFadden v Blue Star Line 8 that:
“If the defect existed [at the commencement of her voyage], the question to be put is: Would a prudent owner have required that it should be made good before sending his ship to sea had he known of it? If he would, the ship was not seaworthy within the meaning of the undertaking.”
The issue in the appeal, as in the Admiralty Court,9 was whether defects in a vessel’s passage plan and working charts rendered the CMA CGM Libra unseaworthy because they
Case and comment

549

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

If you are already a subscriber, please enter your details below to log in.

Enter your email address to log in as a user on your corporate account.
Remember me on this computer

Not yet an i-law subscriber?

Devices

Request a trial Find out more