5 Dissecting the Supreme Court Judgement
The Supreme Court judgement confirmed that a defective passage plan, as prepared by the second officer and master, can render a vessel unseaworthy. As acknowledged by Justice Teare in the Admiralty Court, “there was no previous case in which it had been held that a defective passage plan renders a vessel unseaworthy.”(1)Libra [2019], 87 This suggests that the judgment represents new precedent. On the other hand, as implied by the Supreme Court, the judgment simply confirmed well established principles of the law related to the seaworthiness obligation under the Hague Rules.
The judgement notably clarified the interaction between the seaworthiness requirement and the nautical fault exemption under the Hague Rules. It determined that if a nautical fault renders a vessel unseaworthy, the owner cannot invoke the nautical fault exemption. Accordingly, the Supreme Courts` interpretation of the Hague Rules imposes stringent temporality, whereby a nautical error occurring prior to the commencement of the voyage cannot be exempted, whereas the same error made during the voyage can be. The Supreme Court held that this is the “natural construction” of the Hague Rules.(2)Libra [2021], 76 It is however noteworthy that the case found its way to the Supreme Court, which suggests that the outcome was not necessarily obvious. Moreover, in this authors opinion, it is not entirely convincing that the Supreme Court`s finding with regards to the relationship between the seaworthiness obligation and the nautical fault exemption is the only plausible “natural construction” of the Hague Rules.(3) Solvang (2020), p. 55
On the issue of due diligence, the Supreme Court found that by way of the master’s failure to exercise due diligence in matters of navigation, owners effectively failed to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed that the due diligence obligation is not satisfied by simply equipping the vessel with all that is needed for the vessel to be safely navigated: the due diligence obligation extends to matters of actual navigation. In concluding on the nature and scope of the due diligence aspect of the seaworthiness obligation, the Supreme Court relied on the authority in Muncaster Castle. Whilst Muncaster Castle is considered leading authority in the matter, it is questionable if the principles derived from this judgement are appropriate to apply in a case such as the one at hand.
The Supreme Court delivered a clear and definitive judgment on the proper interpretation of the seaworthiness obligation under the Hague Rules, seemingly leaving little room for ambiguity. Nevertheless, as indicated above, there are aspects of the judgement that are somewhat questionable. In particular, one might question if the Supreme Court were correct in treating the master’s failure to exercise due diligence in matters of navigation as initial unseaworthiness. Inherent to this question is whether the Hague Rules were interpreted in a manner that is in line with the objectives and intent underlying the Rules. In the following chapter of this thesis, the Supreme Court judgement will be analyzed, particularly focusing on the court’s interpretation of the relationship between the due diligence obligation to provide a seaworthy ship at the commencement of the voyage and the nautical fault exemption. This analysis will involve a thorough review of the Supreme Court’s reasoning, exploring and dissecting the legal arguments and rationales that ultimately led to the final ruling in CMA CGM Libra.