We are advised that during a recent visit to a certain Australian port, on nearing completion a Member's ship was visited by union officials.
A new Brazilian Government Ordinance states that all stowaways arriving at Brazilian ports are to be disembarked from the carrying ship on arrival. Following disembarkation, the stowaways are to be held in detention until travel documents necessary for their repatriation are obtained.
Members are reminded that the waters of the western approach to Singapore are not properly designated anchorages or waiting areas for Singapore and that ships anchoring in this area (usually awaiting orders or taking provisions whilst seeking to avoid port charges) are vulnerable to intervention from the local authorities.
55 - 07/98 - Stowaway Fines - Italy
30/06/1998
On the 30th March 1998 it was reported that the Genoa Port Police had detained a stowaway in the port area. Subsequent investigations revealed that the stowaway had escaped from a Member's ship. As a consequence the Master was personally fined as he had not previously placed the Italian Immigration Authorities on notice that there was a stowaway on board.
Members should be aware that AMSA Port State Control inspectors will detain a ship immediately they find something of note wrong regardless of whether it can be rectified within minutes/ hours. The detention will only be lifted after a second visit.
59 - 07/98 - Sugar Problems - Worldwide
30/06/1998
We have been made aware of strict new attitudes of the Venezuelan authorities, especially the Institute of the Preservation of the Lake Maracaibo (ICLAM) and the Ministry of the Environment towards incidents where oil is spilt, or where ballast water is pumped into the sea, Lake Maracaibo or rivers.
Please refer also to Bulletin 15 - 09/97 - Oil Record Book Checking - Bremerhaven (Germany) and Bulletin 32 - 01/98 - Oil Record Book Checking (Fines) - Worldwide.
The vast majority of ships trading today are purchased with money advanced by a bank or other financial institution and are therefore subject to a mortgage. It will usually be agreed, however, that the owner will continue to trade the vessel himself so that the bank will not be directly involved in the ship's commercial operation. Indeed, it is likely to be the trading income earned by the owner which is used to pay the mortgage debt. But there will inevitably be occasions when the mortgagee bank wishes to exercise its option to enforce its mortgage, for example by arresting and selling the ship. Whatever the position between the bank and the shipowner, the effect of such an arrest may well be to prevent performance of the contracts of carriage to which the ship is then subject; thereby causing a breach of the charterparty between the owner and the charterer and/or the bill of lading contract between the owner and cargo interests. This article examines the extent to which the existence of a charterparty or bill of lading contract may inhibit the ability of a mortgagee to enforce his mortgage, and his potential liability if he goes beyond these limits.
This article looks at the operation of such cancelling clauses, and how they interrelate with the charterer's remedies
The delivery of a ship or rig under a construction contract can often be delayed well beyond the original contractual delivery date. The reasons for this are of course many and varied, and the delay may be caused by factors for which the builder or the buyer (or, indeed, neither party) are responsible. In these circumstances, the construction contract will need to provide for the situations in which the delivery date is to be extended, whether (and if so when) the buyer can claim liquidated damages in respect of the delay, and whether he can ultimately cancel the contract completely. It will also need to deal with the builder's remedies where the delay is caused by the buyer, and in what circumstances he can claim additional remuneration as a result.
Unsafe ports - The "Kanchenjunga"
04/05/1998
Paper underlining the caselaw in regards to unsafe ports and the recent case of Kanchenjunga in which it was held that the owners' task when receiving an order to go to a port which he believes to be unsafe is to act reasonably.