Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
WHO IS AN OPERATOR WITHIN LLMC?
Mayank Suri*
The Stema Barge II
As discussed previously,1 in The Stema Barge II,2 Teare J held that Stema Shipping (UK) (“Stema UK”), an associated company of the barge’s owner, Splitt Chartering APS (“Splitt”), and the charterer, Stema Shipping A/S (“Stema A/S”), was entitled to limit liability as an “operator” under Art.1(2) of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (“LLMC”). However, the Court of Appeal3 has now reversed Teare J’s decision. This note will analyse the reasons which led to this reversal.
Brief background facts
Stema Barge II (“the Barge”), a dumb barge, whilst anchored off the coast of Dover during a storm, dragged anchor and damaged an underwater cable owned by the appellant. In the ensuing limitation action, Teare J found that Stema UK was an operator
* Research Fellow, Centre for Maritime Law, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore and Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School, India. The author is grateful to Professor Paul Myburgh for his comments.
1. See Mayank Suri, “Will LLMC apply to Remote Control Centre Operators? (The Stema Barge II)” [2022] LMCLQ 9. Doubts in respect of remote operators falling within the ambit of LLMC are real. See Work Programme—Proposal for a new output to develop a consistent legal framework for the regulation of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) across IMO instruments, LEG 109/13/2, Canada and the Republic of Korea, 10 January 2022 at [12]: “Therefore, it is essential to consider whether the remote operator is falling within the scope of ‘manager and operator of the ship’.”
2. Splitt Chartering APS v Saga Shipholding Norway AS (The Stema Barge II) [2020] EWHC 1294 (Admlty); [2021] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 307; [2020] Bus LR 1517 (hereafter “Stema Barge II HC”).
3. Splitt Chartering APS v Saga Shipholding Norway AS (The Stema Barge II)
[2021] EWCA 1880; [2022] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 170 (hereafter “Stema Barge II CA”).
178