1 Abstract
On November 10th, 2021, the UK Supreme Court issued a ruling in Alize 1954 and another v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG and others (hereinafter “The CMA CGM Libra case”).(1)Alize 1954 and another v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG and others [2021] UKSC 51 (hereinafter: “Libra [2021]” ) Interestingly, the judgement confirmed that a defective passage plan constituted a failure to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy, amounting to a breach of Article III Rule 1 of the Hague Rules. Effectively, the judgement established that initial unseaworthiness overrides the “error of navigation” defense. The judgement provides a thorough analysis of the seaworthiness requirement under the Hague Rules and has been described as “essential reading for practitioners who have dealings with cargo claims and should now be the starting point in any case concerning seaworthiness under the Rules…”(2) Russell (2021) However, the judgement has not been free of controversy and the legal implications of the ruling are debatable. Throughout this thesis, the Supreme Court judgement will be reviewed and analyzed, particularly focusing on how the Court addressed the seaworthiness obligation and its interplay with the nautical fault exemption. To inform this paper, caselaw, academic literature, national and international legislation and rules will be reviewed.