- within Finance and Banking topic(s)
- with readers working within the Banking & Credit, Insurance and Transport industries
The last year has been an eventful one, with continued economic and geopolitical uncertainty creating both challenges and opportunities for businesses operating in the shipping industry. Likewise, a slew of new cases and legislative reforms generated significant changes to both principle and practice.
As for geopolitical developments, the most dramatic has undoubtedly been the disruption caused by the Israel-Palestine conflict, which substantially reduced shipping activity in the Red Sea as a result of several attacks on merchant vessels by Houthi rebel groups. This resulted in a substantial and sustained increase in freight rates over the course of 2024. This more than counteracted the influx of additional tonnage which had been ordered across the industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is unclear, however, whether rates will hold up in the coming year, given the resurgence of protectionist economic policies amongst major economies such as the United States, which may result in a downturn in international trade.
The continued instability around the Red Sea, hot on the heels of the Russia-Ukraine War and the COVID-19 pandemic, has given rise to various disputes. For example, The Rubymar [2025] EWHC 664 (Comm) is the first Commercial Court decision arising from Houthi attacks (analysed below by Guy Blackwood KC and Robert Ward on page 9) and concerned an asymmetrical jurisdiction clause in an insurance policy. The key issue in dispute was whether English proceedings, brought under the jurisdiction clause, should be stayed in favour of Cypriot proceedings initiated by the assured.
As for COVID-19, the decision of Henshaw J in The Sagar Ratan [2025] EWHC 193 (Admiralty), handed down in February 2025, was the first time the English court has considered the widely used BIMCO Infectious or Contagious Diseases Clause for Time Charter Parties 2015 ("the BIMCO Clause") and, in particular, the meaning of the phrase "Affected Area". Henshaw J held that an "Affected Area" would include a port or place where (i) the risk of quarantine or other restrictions is one of general application arising from a qualifying disease, such as a blanket requirement to quarantine all vessels for 14 days regardless of test results, or (ii) there is a risk of quarantine or other restrictions because of the relevant vessel having previously visited a port affected by the Disease. This decision will no doubt be of great practical utility in dealing with the myriad of claims arising out of the disruption occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the past year has also brought the typical stream of authorities concerning novel points of shipping law. Arguably the most important decision of last year was that of the Supreme Court in The Giant Ace [2024] UKSC 38, which concerned the long-debated question of whether the one-year time bar in Article III Rule 6 under the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules applies to misdelivery and other breaches occurring after discharge of the goods. The Supreme Court held that under both the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules, Article III Rule 6 operated as a time bar in respect of all breaches of duty on the part of the carrier, including misdelivery of the goods, up to and including delivery of the goods.
Also handed down by the Supreme Court this year was the long-awaited decision in The MSC Flaminia [2025] UKSC 14. Here, the Supreme Court decided that the 1976 Limitation Convention does permit a charterer, whose right to limit arises because it falls within the definition of "shipowner", to limit its liability in relation to claims by the actual owner in respect of losses suffered by (and only by) the owner. The appellant time charterer had sought an order that it was entitled to limit its liability to the owner of a ship, the respondent, which arose out of an explosion on the MSC Flaminia that took place in July 2012 as a result of the loading of a dangerous cargo of DVB. The owner sought compensation for various costs incurred following the explosion, including costs relating to decontamination and discharge of cargo, and removing waste and firefighting water from the ship's hold. As well as rejecting the Owners' argument that the Charterer could not limit its liability, the court gave some important clarity on the scope of Article 2.1 (see Tom Griffiths' article on page 11).
Indeed, the past year has been somewhat of an annus mirabilis for limitation claims, with two further notable decisions in the area being handed down by the High Court. Firstly, in a case arising out of the sinking of the X-Press Pearl off Sri Lanka in 2021, the High Court was asked to consider the scope of the phrase "charterer ... of a seagoing ship" in the definition of "shipowner" under Article 1(2) of the 1976 Convention (Sea Consortium Ltd and Others v Bengal Tiger Line Ltd Pte and Others [2024] EWHC 3174 (Admiralty)). The case confirmed the decision of Teare J in The MSC Napoli [2008] EWHC 3002 (Admlty) that slot charterers are included within the Article 1(2) definition, so that there is no requirement that the 'charterer' in question has the right to use or direct the use of the entire cargo carrying capacity of the ship. It should normally be sufficient for a party to be considered an Article 1(2) 'charterer' that its relevant contract obliges an owner or disponent owner to make part of the carrying capacity of a ship available to that party for the carriage of goods which that party will have contracted, or will be obliged to contract, to undertake as carrier.
If that wasn't enough, Cockerill J's decision in Réseau de Transport d'Électricité v Costain Ltd & Others [2025] EWHC 73 (Admlty) provides an important framework for the application of cause of action estoppel and abuse of process in limitation claims (discussed by Chirag Karia KC and Jakob Reckhenrich in their article on page 16).
Finally, as for legislative reform, the big development was of course the enactment of the Arbitration Act 2025 (the "2025 Act"), which received Royal Assent on 24 February 2025. The 2025 Act applies to arbitral proceedings (and related court proceedings) commenced after 1 August 2025 and amends the Arbitration Act 1996 ("the 1996 Act") in a number of key respects. One welcome amendment is that an arbitral tribunal can now issue an award on a summary basis on a claim, defence or issue under s. 7 if that claim, defence or issue has no real prospect of success. More controversial has been s. 11. Where a party has objected to the arbitral tribunal's substantive jurisdiction under s. 67 of the 1996 Act and the tribunal has already ruled on that objection, s. 11 provides that for such cases procedural rules of court may be introduced to prevent grounds of objection or evidence not previously before the tribunal from being introduced (unless the applicant could not have done so through reasonable diligence) and to prevent evidence that was heard by the tribunal from being re-heard by the court.
As is inevitable, many of the developments arising out of the 2025 Act and the cases above have prompted debate. This is a good thing. The constant stream of new decisions and reforms, and the vitality with which they have been discussed, ensures that English shipping law remains vibrant and flexible, enriched by the contributions of its practitioners and responding aptly to the changing realities of global commerce.
To view the full article click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
